Subject: [arch-d] About Location and Identifier

From: "William Lipkind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:46:56 +0100

Hi,

First, thank you all for this interesting discussion!

I'd like to bring another view to this ongoing debate on id-locator split:

While it seems useful to "empty" the current IP address from any
identification meaning and assign such task to another separate value,
I've been wondering what it can mean if we look to the location in a
(maybe) different way, which is close to how it is dealt (with high
success) with a "target" in a military field.

In fact, would it be useful to think about an approach which considers a
"very" precise location as an identity by itself? This means that we drop
the need to add an "explicit" identifier and we take another approach to
deal with locations alone but with an identity burried inside?

Does this make sense?

Regards,

William
_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 12:45:06 -0500 (EST)

> From: "William Lipkind" <[email-masked]>

    > identification meaning

Actually, we're mostly all proposing doing the exact opposite: removing any
location meaning from the current IPv4/6 addresses.

    > would it be useful to think about an approach which considers a "very"
    > precise location as an identity by itself?

No, because then, if you change your location, you change your identity -
which is the very thing we are trying to avoid.

	Noel