I am a strong proponent of trying to find a way to create a new set of end identifiers that would be insensitive to the changing of IP level addresses. It seems to me that we would find ourselves working pretty hard to tease apart the current strong binding of IP and TCP (pseudoheaders etc) but it may be well worth the effort. For one thing, it might lead to the ability to carry TCP segments over multiple Source/Destination pairs between the same hosts (labeled by a single end point identifier each) in addition to allowing for rebinding of endpoint identifier and IP address. The rendezvous and signalling problem of concurrent motion is not unlike the challenge of TCP's simultaneous-INIT - you have to get the fixed point right to make it all work. We have other fixed points in the Internet, notably the root hint file, so perhaps it is not unreasonable to consider another fixed point concept to facilitate simultaneous rebinding of IP and endpoint identifiers. I suspect this ge! ts pre tty messy when you start to think about multicast but that's territory that also needs exploring. We would also want to look very carefully at the potential spoofing opportunity that rebinding would likely introduce.
Vint At 05:44 PM 9/12/2003 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: >and of course neither SCTP or TCP would be sufficient by itself. we still >need a suitable identifier, a way to map those into locators, and a way to >maintain those mappings. > >I'm still undecided about whether it is better to modify existing transports >or to do a mobile-IP like approach. The latter has tunneling overhead but >works for all transports and in some sense the changes are simpler. Vint Cerf SVP Technology Strategy MCI 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mci.com/cerfsup
