Silly. We already *do have two namespaces*. One is EIDs in form of FQDNs. They are portable. Another is IPv4 addresses which aren't. How about fixing the real problem -- i.e. making renumbering easy and removing all hardwired addresses from the software? (And, yes, fixing DNS). The magic-cookie EID scheme is nothing more than more complexity to work around the broken implementations. That extra level of indirection is patently useless otherwise. Even funnier, implementation of magic cookie EIDs requires changes in exactly the same pieces of software which need to be changed to repair existing two-level scheme. Note that fixing DNS (and you *have* to do that anyway if you want to use intermediate EIDs) is a lot easier than replacing routers, and does not introduce compatibility problems at the transport level. Sorry, nobody managed to make any reasonable case pro magic-cookie EIDs as yet. The best rationale i've heard was from Noel who said that his "architect's sense" tells him so. Funny thing, a surgeon i know was at loss when i asked him about this function of organism, should be a new discovery in medicine. --vadim In regards to:

(Tim Bass) Technically, the aggregation advocates were correct. Socially and politically, aggregation on a global cooperative scale has problems. (Noel) Which is why we need *two* namespaces: one for the routing to do what mathematics forces it to, and one for the humans to be able to dork with.

This idea has been around *long* enough. When do we separate the name spaces? How about along with the IPng transition? -Mike