> 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.
that's like saying that if I write my protocols so that I never use referrals,
then there's no problem with the inability to do referrals.
of course, writing my protocols so that I never use referrals drastically
limits what I can do with the network. for instance, DNS could not exist.
but never mind the lost functionality, we can at least pretend we have a clean
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 address, or
thus reducing the problem to a different unsolved problem.
- ii) pass the other party both the identifier and a current, working
address for that endpoint.
thus requiring me to continue to use IP addresses in referrals.