Re: identity persistence and comparison issues

marcelo bagnulo braun;

> I mean, in any proposal that manages bindings between multiple locators 
> that can be used to reach a single endpoint, you need some state in the 
> endpoints about the binding. This state has to be preserved as long as 
> the communication exists, and some garbage collection mechanism is 
> needed to delete this state after it is used.
> As you mention, the wedge layer does not have knowledge about the apps 
> still need the binding state, so how do you know when to delete it?

Just say NAT.

> For example,

Of course, there are many cases where NAT-like approaches
just does not work. A notable example is (v4)FTP.

> how does this work in the hip case?

It has nothing to do with hip and it does not work.

> Now how long this state is preserved in node A? and how does the node A 
> knows when to delete it?

A NAT operator can give you the answer that it is 5 minutes.

> I mean, perhaps there is an app that has been quiet for a long time and 
> wants to continue the communication afterwards,

and the reality of the Internet is ignored by people promoting
NAT.

> I guess that the solution would be to use very long garbage collection 
> times, but as you have mentioned sometime before, this approach may 
> introduce some additional danger and it clearly does not guarantee that 
> all apps will be satisfied
> 
> am i missing something?

No, not at all.

> Any ideas?

We need yet another WG or a standardization body.

							Masataka Ohta

PS

If you still believe in IETF, try to argue against me in v6 ML on
my reasoning about why ND over WLAN is useless.