> 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.
>> 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.
??? I said nothing about Mobile IPv6 being a solution to the routing problem.
I was merely pointing out that your catechismic canard about "no fully worked
out example of separating location and identity" is ludicrous on its face,
given the existence of an *IPv6* mechanism that does just that.
Noel