Re: identity persistence and comparison issues

El 29/06/2004, a las 13:30, Brian E Carpenter escribió:

> 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,

including a referral?


>  must be a permanent identifier with the
> nice property that something below the socket API can transform it
> into a locator.
>

i agree with this

regards, marcelo

> 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
>