[Please direct replies either to the IPv6 or the IETF mailing lists, but not both. The default should be IPv6, imho.]
Pekka Nikander wrote: >> Now, even though I believe that we should solve the problems (and >> apparently believe that there are sensible solutions), achieving >> consensus on solutions that require architectural change may take too >> long. Hence, I also believe that we need some kind of a road map, >> with some "temporary" or intermediate solutions along the way to a >> more long-standing set of solutions.
Robert Honore replied: > I agree, and your statement corresponds to what Keith Moore says about > the solutions fitting into a framework that is yet to be specified. I > believe specification of that framework begins with our defining > what an end-point is.
Good that we agree on a need for a roadmap. Now, I want to return back to your original problem analysis:
> * Stable (or reliable) end-point identifiers > * Resiliency of application (protocol) in the face of sudden > IP address changes > * Self-organised networks
These are the goals that we need to focus on. While designing the longer term architectural solutions, we need to preserve the current functionality, and think about transition mechanisms. From this point of view, the only (semi-)stable end-point identifiers we have today are IP addresses. We both agree, and I think quite a few others agree, that IP addresses are not very good end-point identifiers. However, they are used as such today.
Furthermore, it will take quite a long time to get something to replace the IP addresses as end-point identifiers. As has been discussed several times, domain names do not work well enough, and therefore we need a new name space, I think.
Consequently, we have to provide (semi-)stable IP addresses for IPv6 networks. Based on the recent discussion at the IPv6 WG, apparently people think that PA addresses are not stable enough. Hence, at least to me, the Hinden/Haberman addresses look like a good temporary solution. It seems to provide stable IP addresses, which can temporarily be used as end-point identifiers, with the expectation that they will be eventually replaced with "proper" end-point identifiers.
What comes to application resiliency, Christian Huitema's approach of (mis)using Mobile IP may work well enough for a while. However, it has a number of architectural problems that make me to think about it only as a temporary solution. Going further, if we did not have any other reasons for "proper" end-point identifiers, I think that Dave Croker's MAST might be good next step. However, since I do think that we most probably do need stable and secure end-point identifiers, I think that something like HIP will be more appropriate.
[I'm relatively ignorant to the exact details of self-organized networks, and therefore I don't want to comment that.]
Given the above, I think we could have a roadmap that might look something like the following:
Stable identifiers: Hinden/Haberman -------------> New name space for end-point Resiliency on Huitema MIPv6 --> (MAST) ---> identifiers address changes: multi-homing (maybe HIP)
--Pekka Nikander