Hi,
In answer to your questions, various people felt that IPv6 was enough,
and that the IP address could be used as the end point identifier. Even
in the case of mobility it was felt that MIPv6 would serve the purpose
of a stable identifier. As is pointed out in the draft, the flaw in
this idea is that even the MIPv6 MN address is tied to the topology.
Eliot
Ronald van der Pol wrote:
<quote>
4. Conclusions or Questions
The NSRG was not able to come to unanimity as to whether an
architectural change is needed.
</quote>
There has been a lot of discussion about the separation of identifiers
and locators (in various forms) on the multi6, ipv6 and ietf lists.
A lot of people seem to think this is in some form needed.
I would like to know the arguments against such a change. I don't
think the document has much text about this. It lists a lot of
questions. But most are more "how" than "why" questions. Are there
many people fundamentally against a change and if so, why?
rvdp