My own reaction to this question is similar.
I can imagine an architecture and set of tools where the responsibility
for the identification was either dynamic or an upper layer responsibility.
However, I think that we may be better off, in trying to get to a better
state, if the network / routing / lower layers provides a useful stable
identifier.
One example is that this provides a hook on which to hang the various
kinds of security mechanisms, so that security is not tied to the
locators. (security tied to the locator seems to be a problem that we
gave ourselves by not having anything else for it to be based on.)
Similarly, it seems to me that having such an identifier simplifies many
of the problems of adding and subtracting locators from a site. While
one can structure all the changes in terms of old-set->new-set, it seems
much more robust to think in terms of an identifier aquiring new locator
information. This identification would seem to also be useful
eventually in terms of policy management (which often loives at these
layers), and related issues.
Yours,
Joel
Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Scott Brim <[email protected]>
> Do you think routing and addressing requires a session ID in every
> packet? If not, let the upper layers find their own solutions
In a clean, carefully integrated architecture I might agree with you
(although robustness arguments, which often involve redundancy, might
disagree). In something that's evolving over time, starting from something
that's already got some 'bags on the side', there might be a certain value
in carrying around the semi-duplicate info. But it is of course impossible
to say specifically without examining the costs and benefits of a
particular proposed design.
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
