On Oct 4, 2012, at 4:00 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Cutler James R > <james.cut...@consultant.com> wrote: >> On Oct 3, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> In 100 years, when we start to run out of IPv6 addresses, possibly we >>> will have learned our lesson and done two things: >>> >>> (1) Stopped mixing the Host identification and the Network >>> identification into the same bit field; instead every packet gets a >>> source network address, destination network address, AND an >>> additional tuple of Source host address, destination host >>> address; residing in completely separate address spaces, with no >>> "Netmasks", "Prefix lengths", or other comingling of network >>> addresses and host address spaces. >>> >>> And >>> (2) The new protocol will use variable-length address for the Host >>> portion, such as used in the addresses of CLNP, with a convention of >>> a specified length, instead of a hardwired specific limit that comes >>> from using a permanently fixed-width field. >> >> I suggest that the DNS name space should be considered to be >> an "hierarchical host address space" thus satisfying (1) and making (2) moot. > > I'd suggest that too, but we'd have to throw out TCP, UDP and a good > chunk of the BSD sockets API to get there. > > Or did you mean use DNS as it fits in the current system, which > doesn't actually satisfy (1) at all since the layer 4 protocols > continue to build the connection identity from the layer 3 network > identity instead of the external host/service identity. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin
Yes. Why does the connection identity have to include the host identifier. Is that not a problem under the control of applications?