In message <[email protected]> Brian E Carpenter writes: > On 26/02/2015 05:14, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Ray Hunter wrote: > > > >> That way the devices can roam at L3, without all of the nasty side effects > >> of re-establishing TPC sessions, or updating > >> dynamic naming services, or having to run an L2 overlay network > >> everywhere, or having to support protocols that require a > >> specialised partner in crime on the server side (mTCP, shim6 et al). > > > > It's my firm belief that we need to rid clients of IP address dependence > > for its sessions. Asking clients to participate in HNCP > > only addresses the problem where HNCP is used. > > > > Fixing this for real would reap benefits for devices moving between any > > kind of network, multiple providers, mobile/fixed etc. > > Violent agreement. This is not a homenet problem; it's an IP problem. > In fact, it's exactly why IP addresses are considered harmful in > some quarters. Trying to fix it just for homenet seems pointless. > http://www.sigcomm.org/ccr/papers/2014/April/0000000.0000008 > > Brian
Brian, Seriously - your paper may be overstating the problem. At least if we discount IPv4 and in doing so eliminate NAT we solve a lot of problems that never should have existed in the first place. If we carry NAT over to IPV6, then shame on us. If we get rid of NAT a big part of the problem just goes away. No alternate spaces, kludgy rendezvous mechanisms, etc. Using an address on the loopback gets rid of the multiple interface problem and where it really matters (ISP router and ISP or DS server reachability) this has been done with configuration for two decades. The multihoming failover or roaming are a bit more difficult but things MPTCP is supposed to address. Curtis _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
