From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thu 11/13/2008 5:28 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Mark Townsley; Eric Klein; Routing Research Group Mailing List; Behave WG; v6ops@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> I beleive that the question would not arise If we had a coherent
> Internet architecture
>
> The idea that an application can or should care that the IP address of a
> packet is constant from source to destination is plain bonkers.
On the contrary, the idea that an application must not care that the IP
address of a packet is consistent from source to destination is plain
bonkers. Even assuming the existence of a higher level identifier and a
secure, fast, scalable, reliable way of finding routes to that
identifier, there will still be some need to talk to a host or an interface.
And nobody has demonstrated an application-independent mapping service
that is anywhere nearly up to that task. Until somebody does,
statements about what the architecture "should" do, or what applications
"should not" do with addresses, are at best wishful thinking, and at
worst delusion. And the more often someone makes such a statement
without qualification, the more it looks like the latter.
Keith
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf