Christian Vogt wrote:
Scott -
Feynman is absolutely right, and certainly a network should enable
future, unknown applications. But your conclusion that end-to-end
locator transparency is a requirement to build such a network does not
convince me.
This said, there is no question that end-to-end locator transparency is
a critical property in the Internet we have. (And this was, after all,
was the point that Lixia and Dave were making.) My point was that
end-to-end locator transparency is not the /reason/ for the Internet's
success, because you could build networks that function perfectly fine
without it. E.g., a network with identifier-locator separation.
That's an interesting theory. I've yet to be convinced it's more than
wishful thinking.
I'll believe in ID-locator separation in the Internet when
a) there is a fast, reliable, secure and scalable system for either
routing on ID, or mapping from ID to locator, that is closely coupled to
both the routing system and the system of assigning addresses to
endpoints, so that they do not get out of sync with one another.
b) host stacks demultiplex incoming traffic via ID rather than locator
IMO, those are necessary, but perhaps not sufficient, conditions for it
to work.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf