"J. Noel Chiappa" <jnc(_at_)ginger(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu> writes:
> 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".
That doesn't actually fix the problem, Noel. If you don't have an
underlying functioning network with scalable routing even if all
systems were running on the mobile protocols it still wouldn't work.
People want to dual home their networks for redundancy and
reliability. This leads to an explosion in the size of the routing
tables. We unfortunately don't know a way to fix that. Even if you
renumbered the whole net ever 10 seconds through some miracle, you'd
still need routes to all those folks to be propagated through the
default free zone. That means if you have 100,000 networks with
multiple ingress paths, you still need that many routes. If you have a
million networks with multiple ingress paths, you need that many
routes. It doesn't matter if everyone uses the mobile addresses as
their "endpoint identifiers".
What's especially amusing is that although I keep pointing this wonderfully
ironic and devastating counter-argument out,
It is ironic and devastating TO YOU. It isn't particularly interesting
to the rest of us.
Perry E. Metzger perry(_at_)wasabisystems(_dot_)com
NetBSD Development, Support & CDs. http://www.wasabisystems.com/