Re: identity persistence and comparison issues

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 28-jun-04, at 14:45, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> 
>> And if the long-lived ID is one of the locators we can provide 
>> compatbility
>> for unmodified applications which do referrals and callbacks.
> 
> 
> We should really talk to some apps people to figure out how important 
> this is. It's entirely trivial to shoot yourself in the foot today with 
> NAT or multiple addresses anyway, and then there is dual stack. How are 
> referrals going to work when a future participant in the communication 
> may be limited to one IP version, which happens to be the other one than 
> the one used by current participants?
> 
> It may very well be that apps and protocols need to be changed anyway in 
> order to work with IPv6, or IPv4+IPv6.

The point is that today, the underlying assumption of most applications
is that the IP address they get back from an A or AAAA query, or any
other source including manual config, is a permanent identifier with
the nice property that the routing system can use it as a locator.

NAT breaks this assumption of course. But we are trying to repair the
damage done by NAT. So I suggest that a multi6 goal should be that the
thing an application gets back from an AAAA query, or any other source
including manual config, must be a permanent identifier with the
nice property that something below the socket API can transform it
into a locator.

Which leads me to wonder whether session survival for sessions using
temporary things such as RFC 3041 addresses is a reasonable goal for
multi6.

    Brian