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 see. I'm 100% with Jim here.
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"?
Sorry, Dutch bleeding into English. I have the nasty tendency to type "of" when I mean "or". ("Of" is Dutch for "or".)
What I mean: is it likely we'll be looking at 128 bit values and wonder whether those are identifiers or locators? I think there will (nearly) always be enough context to know which we're dealing with.
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.
Strange.
You explicitly seem to expect that some identifiers will (most of the time) work as locators.
If we design them that way, certainly.
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.
Then don't use identifiers that are also reachable locators. However, in this case you probably have the problem that you can't put the locators in a mapping system beforehand.
The DNS is secure enough more than 99% of the time.
YMMV. Especially with DynDNS.
Dynamic DNS is so secure that _I_ can't even dynamically change my zones. :-)
<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. :-)
Ok, I'll put them on my list. But generally I like the somewhat older stuff better as I'm always amazed by the bizarre stuff they come up with. :-) Compared to that things like Putnam's brains in a vat are almost a cop-out.
The Descartes reference is towards the "doubt everything" doctrine in his meditations, by the way. Not a bad rule when doing network security...
</REALLY-OFF-TOPIC>
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
