Re: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>]

On 19-sep-2007, at 0:10, Keith Moore wrote:

> What bugs me is that I think that the existence of mini-cores (or more
> generally, a large number of private interconnections between networks
> using ULA prefixes) leads to a world where it becomes important to  
> have
> a particular kind of source address to talk to a particular kind of
> destination address, and in which applications are expected to choose
> the right source address in order to talk to a particular kind of
> destination address.  So the sources addresses available to a  
> particular
> host end up being like a keyring.  I don't think that's a good  
> burden to
> put on apps, and I don't think that using addresses like  
> authentication
> tokens is a good way to go.

I don't think having a large set of source addresses with different  
reachability is a good thing, but it's likely unavoidable to have  
several.

If applications don't want to worry about addressing issues, the only  
solution is that applications don't get to see addresses in the first  
place. (The multi-address genie is out of the box regardless of  
anything else just by virtue of having an IPv4 and an IPv6 address.)  
The corollary being that protocols implemented inside applications  
must be address agnostic as well.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf