I think your points on both topics are well taken.
I also have the notion that the current approach of combining the locator and identifier in IPv4 and IPv6 has a lot of value that we tend to take for granted. It provides a degree of authentication that requires lots of cryptographic technology to replicate if they are separated. Instead of a bug, I think it is a feature :-)
Bob
a true separation of locator and identifier is a more fundamental change to the Internet architecture than moving from IPv4 to IPv6.as soon as you separate locator and identifier, you have the burden of providing a mapping service between the two, which is efficient, reliable, secure, and precise enough to be used for all applications. DNS (which is typically proposed as the solution) doesn't even come close. OTOH, mobileIP is a fairly close approximation to separating locator and identifier if you get past the notion that "home agent" is specific to a single host (as opposed to a set of hosts with a common prefix), and that "home" has anything to do with the normal physical location of a host. being able to get rid of the home agent when the host has a home and is at home is a useful optimization that works in some cases, but not in all or most cases.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
