On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 19:32 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > If you find yourself in the situation where the currently known > locator(s) are unreachable, you can't ask the other side for locators. > If you also can't look them up, you can't contact the correspondent > through another locator and the session is dead or can't be > established. With mobility this is especially likely as a mobile host > will often not know its new locator before the old one stops working. > > In theory a locator->locator lookup would be possible, maybe through > the DNS. In that case, the ID value is superfluous. > > Maybe we should simply deprecate identifiers. After all, I know who I > am and you know who you are, and the packets get there through the > locators. And if identity is really necessary, higher layers can > manage it (TLS etc).
If I understand what you have in mind, this solution would look like shim6 (i.e., host has multiple addresses, each with different IIDs). Please correct me if I am wrong, but shim6 does not support either (1) mobility or (2) transparent (to transport layer) stateless network locator translation, correct? I can imagine how shim6 could be made to work for mobility, but I can't imagine how it can be made to work with network locator translation, without turning it into an 8+8 scheme. Regards, // Steve -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
