> From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(_at_)wasabisystems(_dot_)com>
> People frequently propose "endpoint identifiers" and "routing
> identifiers" be separated but no one has ever come up with a worked
> proposal that was less flawed than the current mechanism.
I always find it incredibly funny when IPv6 proponents roll out this tired,
worthless canard - because the IPv6 protocol suite contains a very nicely
worked out mechanism which does *exactly* this!
It's called Mobile IPv6, and the "care-of address" in the basic IPv6 header
is exactly the "routing identifier", whilst the home address in the IPv6
routing header is the "endpoint identifier". (Don't be confused by the fact
that the two identifiers are from the same namespace - the functionality is
exactly that proposed in other schemes, although they vary the two namspaces
to better suit each to their particular function.)
Needless to say, the sight of IPv6 proponents ranting about how nobody has
ever come up with a fully specified way to do this, while the protocol they
are defending contains, apparently unbeknown to them, the perfect
counter-evidence to this sterile claim, is extremely educational as to the
general clue level.
What's especially amusing is that although I keep pointing this wonderfully
ironic and devastating counter-argument out, some IPv6 proponents keep
trotting out this same old lame, bogus point. Oh well, perhaps eventually
these simple points will sink in. In the meantime, perhaps the crack IPv6
"spin team" needs to update the "talking points" that people are working
from, and make sure that such obvious howlers don't continue to embarass them.
PS: Additional irony can be obtained from the intense assertion that since a
perfectly finished worked mechanism is (supposedly) not in evidence, that the
idea is therefore a bad one which should be ignored. Too bad this standard
wasn't applied when IPv6 was picked, back in 1994 (or whenever it was - it's
been a long time) - we wouldn't be inflicted with it now.