Re: where the indirection layer belongs

Dear Folks,

I have been trying to understand the problem we are trying to solve in 
this thread and trying to see if I could produce for myself something 
resembling a specific description of that problem.
I might have mentioned in passing earlier today that perhaps we are 
trying to treat as a single problem, separate problems that might be 
better treated as separate.  I am becoming more convinced of this as we 
go on.  As such, I can distinguish the following issues as aspects of 
the problem given all that was mentioned in this thread, the "solving 
the real problem" thread and the one on the IPv6 mail list about 
deprecating Site Local addresses and the usage of IPv6 Link Local 
addresses.  They are as far as I can tell the following.
*       Stable (or reliable) end-point identifiers
*	Resiliency of application (protocol) in the face of sudden IP address 
changes
*       Self-organised networks

With respect to stable end-point identifiers, we must in my opinion, 
still specify what we are calling an end-point and settle once and for 
all the question of whether an IP address is a suitable candidate for 
such an identifier.
With respect to the resiliency of applications in the face of [sudden] 
IP address changes, we need to determine if, as Keith Moore argues it 
cannot be solved in a single layer, or if it can as Tony Hain argues, as 
well as where best to situate such a layer.
The one about the self-organised networks materialises out of the 
discussion going on in the IPv6 mail list about the deprecation of Site 
Local IP addresses and the proper usage of IPv6 Link Local addresses. 
Many of the contributors to those threads were basically arguing that we 
should retain either or both of Site Local and Link Local addresses 
because of intermittently connected sites, nodes or subnetworks, as well 
as being to maintain communications between two locally adjacent when 
the local subnetwork either connects to -  or disconnects from - a 
larger network.
My question following from all that, are two.  Is it worth it to attempt 
a solution to any of the aforementioned problems?  If so, which one 
should we tackle first?
Yours sincerely,
Robert Honore.