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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf