Subject: RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 22:44:53 -0800

> Tony Li wrote:
> Not particularly.  But I can state it very succinctly:
> a host needs one identifier and multiple locators.

Mmmm. This sounds familiar.

Michel.

---

From: Pierre Baume <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:18:11 +0100 (CET)

Michel,

> Mmmm. This sounds familiar.

  Hrm, like in the dns system?

  Ducking and running... :p

Pierre.

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:53:16 +0859 ()

Pierre;

>   Hrm, like in the dns system?

In a sense, yes. It is necessary to involve DNS for, say, ID->locator
mapping.

However, a problem of using a domain name as an identifier is that
not all the packets contain the domain name.

If you work hard, connection oriented protocols such as TCP may
mostly work. But, the approach is not applicable to the connectionless
Internet.

Another desirable property (to prevent source locator forging etc.) is
to let source ISPs modify the source locator, which is impossible
with 16+16.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Pierre Baume <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 08:00:48 +0100 (CET)

Masataka,

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Masataka Ohta wrote:

> However, a problem of using a domain name as an identifier is that not
> all the packets contain the domain name.
[snip]

  A reverse lookup can provide it.

Pierre.