>I was not really discussing backwards API issues either. If we go for a real separation of locators and identifiers, we will also have to define new APIs in the longer run. And slightly revised transport protocols, too.
<snip>>
What exactly do you want to change about the APIs and transport protocols?
Well, I do not exactly /want/ to change the APIs or tranport protocols. I only *anticipate* that due to mobility, multi-address multi-homing, and intermittend connectivity, we end up making changes to the transport protocols, anyway. I also anticipate that if we take the id/loc separation to its logical end, we will create a new set of APIs that will slowly replace the current socket APIs in new applications.
you not only want to know whether it's an identifier or a locator (this part would be easy) but also if it's used in the context of multihomed communication or in the context of single homed communication. That's the hard part.
Sorry, but now I don't understand your thinking at all. Firstly, I still think that if we mix the two, it would be hard to know which one an item is.
The question here is whether we're going to see those locators and/or identifiers outside of a locator of identifier context, and, if we do, whether it's important that we can regain such a context.
Sorry, but I still don't understand. What is "a locator of identifier context"?
Not really. An identifier is fixed, a locator is subject to change. That doesn't mean they can't be the same at one time or another, as long as the value can be changed in the places where it's a locator while it stays the same in the places where it acts as an identifier.
That really sounds like Mobile IP to me. You explicitly seem to expect that some identifiers will (most of the time) work as locators. That may work for the common multi-homing cases today, but it fails to address the most common multi-homing case tomorrow: mobile devices that have multiple radio interfaces that they use at the same time.
The DNS is secure enough more than 99% of the time.
YMMV. Especially with DynDNS.
<REALLY-OFF-TOPIC>
(Just can't resist: Could we compare this to the difference between Aristolean scholastics and Baconian science? :-)
Feel free... Me, I'm more of the Cartesian persuasion when it comes to this.
Ah, that explains a lot. :-) I gave up the idea of the Cartesian theatre already a few years ago. You really must start reading Dennet and Dawkings. :-)
</REALLY-OFF-TOPIC>
--Pekka Nikander
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
