Ran, A couple of remarks.
To be fair, there are several approaches to this that (arguably) are pretty similar: 1) SHIM6 2) GSE/8+8 2b) ILNP 3) Mark H's proposal to modify TCP/UDP behaviour so that the network-layer information is not part of the Transport layer session state.
Please add to the list HIP mobility & multi-homing, see RFC5201- RFC5206 (as they appear any day now).
In some ways, this reminds me of ancient discussions ("Layer Wars")
about the difference between changes at the top of the
network layer and changes at the bottom of the transport layer.
And, besides, e.g. John Day convincingly argues that the "layer boundary" between network and transport is a mistake (and I concur with him). [1]
And even there ephemeral, crypto-strong node-to-node identifiers may be very useful. However, I do think that a HIP-like intermediate step towards such architectures is probably very useful.The above quoted material is unclear to me. Given that all keys are eventually compromised, I would not want my identity to be some f(public key or some other key) -- so that a key compromise does not always lead to a loss of identity.
First, identity != identifier. Second, have you missed all that I've written about delegation and HIP?
--Pekka[1] John Day. Patterns in Network Architecture. Prentice Hall. January 2008.
-- to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg