> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@xxxxxxxxx>
> The original architecture made no assumption that IP would run end to
> end, let alone that the IP address would be constant end to end.
Say what? That's not my recollection at all. But this isn't the
Internet-History list, so I'll move on.
> I do not see any architectural value in insisting that applications
> assume that the IP address is constant from one end of a communication
> to the other.
That's a complex question, and it depends in part on how many other
namespaces there are.
> It is not a necessary assumption .. it is not one that any application
> protocol can rely on if it is to work on 99% of the Internet deployed
> today.
Well, that is certainly true.
> IPv6 should be as little different to deployed IPv4 as possible.
That has minuses as well as pluses, though. A big one is that if IPv6 is just
IPv4 with a few more bits of address, then you sort of limit the capability,
and therefore the benefits, of IPv6. No architectural changes -> no
new/additional capabilities.
> Remember that the first rule of the Internet is: You are SO NOT in
> charge here (for all values of YOU).
A powerful observation, one we should all remember...
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf