On 2012-02-18 08:10, Bob Hinden wrote: > Noel, > > On Feb 17, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >>> From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> >>> the other reason why we went with 128-bit address with a 64/64 split >>> as the common case and defining IIDs that indicate if they have >>> global uniqueness. This creates a framework that an ID/locator split >>> could be implemented. ... we have a framework that would allow it >>> without having to roll out another version of IP. >> Alas, the inclusion of _both halves_ of the IPv6 address in the TCP >> checksum means the framework you speak of is basically useless for an >> identity/location split. >> > > That's why I described it as a framework. The TCP pseudo-checksum would have to change and likely the addition of some sort of authentication at connection establishment to associate an identifiers with a set of locators. Not trivial, but doable. Authentication is not just doable, but done, in shim6. However, shim6 ducks the checksum issue by being a shim. ILNP deals with it up front, but is a bigger change from vanilla IPv6. The flexibility is there, but it's academic until we get IPv6 widely deployed. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf