Thus spake "Scott Michel" <scottm(_at_)cs(_dot_)ucla(_dot_)edu>
As one other responder said, there is a need to accomodate different
addressing styles that separate identity from location. I agree with the
sentiment. So, [erhaps it is only necessary and sufficient to extend or
redefine IP's addressing?
When you add in the (assumed) requirements of backwards compatibility with
existing routers and hosts that don't implement a proposed extension, it
gets messy real quick.
HIP is a good start, but it's still only a BOF and the involvement is
nowhere near what one would expect for (IMHO) the most significant IETF
project since IPv6.
Or perhaps it's only necessary and sufficient to design a universal
application-level forwarding layer? (Warning: plug for my own research
called FLAPPS, http://flapps.cs.ucla.edu/)
While that's certainly interesting in its own right, what I think DARPA (and
the IETF) is looking for is something between the network and transport
layers, not something above transport.
S
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin