> From: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
> it does need to provide such mechanisms in order to provide useful
> endpoint identifiers.
I don't think you can make such a blanket statement without some more
analysis. For example:
> without a mechanism to map the endpoint identifier to an IP address,
> such identifiers are useless in referrals between application
This is not so. Read again what I said before:
If you construct the protocol interactions such that you don't *need* to
be able to look up the "identity->address" mapping (which is what HIP
does - in general, by providing the identity->address mapping used in any
given transaction as part of the initiation thereof), there's no problem.
So if I have a system which doesn't provide a directory of mappings from
endpoint identifier to addresses, then in the case you cite, when I refer one
application component to another, all I need to do is either:
- i) provide some other name, one that can be mapped into both identifier and
- ii) pass the other party both the identifier and a current, working address
for that endpoint.
This is not to say I *advocate* a system which doesn't have such a directory
of identifier->address mappings; I don't have any religion one way or the
other on that. Maybe it's a good idea overall, maybe it's not.
I can't think of an example offhand of a complete transaction where I *have*
to have it, though.