At 12:46 AM -0500 11/12/01, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
Needless to say, the sight of IPv6 proponents ranting about how nobody has
ever come up with a fully specified way to do [ID/locator separation],
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.
Noel,
Way back in June of 1992 on the big-internet mailing list, I pointed
out to you how the (then relatively new) proposed mechanism for doing
mobile IP indeed accomplished the task of separating identity from
location, when necessary, and that the reuse of IP addresses for
identifiers in that case was an important part of making it work.
You, on the other hand, insisted that the identifier be taken from
a different, flat space, which would then *not* be amenable to using
the same binding mechanism as mobile IP, and I'm *still* waiting to
hear your alternative mechanism.
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.
Ah no, the really amusing irony is hearing you now holding up as your
"devastating counter-argument" the one mechanism that, to us old-timers
who became IPv6 proponents, looked like it would actually work and scale
up (and which was specified concretely enough to make those judgements),
but which was previously dismissed by you because its "identifiers"
weren't pure enough.
Steve