On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
HIP: Host Identity Protocol: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/hip-charter.html
this level of complexity seems a little high for anything to be universal. (let me put it this way: A6/DNAME was shot down because of complexity, and it was simpler than this.)
1. A6/DNAME were great idea, I'm really disappointed they are not going forward... 2. Level of complexity is a very relative thing. To me the important is not to overwhelm any single protocol and allow clear separation between different levels.. In that sense if we actually are able to create new "host identity" layer we can solve the problem with not only dynamicly changing ip addresses but with simplified multihoming for end-user sites. What is bad however is that IETF instead of pursuing it as one effort has several of them including MULTI6, HIP, etc. BTW - regarding why these effots while being ip-independet would not work for Ipv6, the reason is addressing. We need new kind of addresses and they all require "id" that TCP can use for establishing connection and that ID can not be limited to 32 bit so we end up considering reusing part of IPv6 space for this new kind of "non-ip" addresses. I think given large amount of available IPv6 space that is acceptable - if we cut the pool to 1/4 we'd still have enough. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net