> If the app is > going to insist on passing around topology information, it has to make > sure that matches the topology being used. agreed. and by far the easiest way to do this is to have all points on the network use consistent names for points in the network topology. the real problem is that people have been conditioned to believe that ambiguous addresses are a security feature, when what this actually serves to do is reduce their ability to apply security in depth. > > If the applications don't > > need to know, and can function in a multiple-address-per-host > > environment without --in the application-- having to determine > > which one to use by some type of iteration process, then you > > need to justify specialized addresses only in terms of their > > requires lower in the stack. If the applications do need to > > know, then the complexity costs appear to be high enough to > > present an insurmountable barrier. > > The current IPv4 network already requires this of applications, the > developers simply choose to ignore reality. until recently 'reality' was that the vast majority of ipv4 hosts had only one network interface, and one address, and most of the rest of the hosts could act as if they only had one interface and one address. so application writers were paying attention to reality, even if they weren't handling (or able to handle) every case that might potentially arise. > My primary issue is that there > are a variety of things people want to use SL for and removing an > existing mechanism without appropriate replacements for all of them > first is an irresponsible act. we need a list of these things, so we can work on a list of replacements. Keith