Re: identity persistence and comparison issues

marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> 
> 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?

That is my meaning, yes.

    Brian

> 
> 
>>  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
>>
> 
> 
>