> But the addresses, both from and to... they're both transient names for computers. Not for people, not for data, and they must remain unchanged for the duration of the interaction.
This is true, but
1) it's an easy problem to solve in many cases (DHCP works great)
2) the exact mechanisms by which an address could be tied to a particular resource are innately dependent on the upper portions of the protocol stack, simply because the very idea of what a "resource" even is must necessarily come from there.
3) the exact mechanisms by which an address could be tied to a particular piece of hardware are necessarily dependent on the lower parts of the stack (MAC addresses, for example)
#2 and #3 illustrate that IP benefits from not solving these issues because doing so would create codependency between IP and the protocols implemented above and below it. Such a situation would defeat the entire purpose of IP, which is to be an application-independent, implementation-independent mover of bits.
This is true, but
1) it's an easy problem to solve in many cases (DHCP works great)
2) the exact mechanisms by which an address could be tied to a particular resource are innately dependent on the upper portions of the protocol stack, simply because the very idea of what a "resource" even is must necessarily come from there.
3) the exact mechanisms by which an address could be tied to a particular piece of hardware are necessarily dependent on the lower parts of the stack (MAC addresses, for example)
#2 and #3 illustrate that IP benefits from not solving these issues because doing so would create codependency between IP and the protocols implemented above and below it. Such a situation would defeat the entire purpose of IP, which is to be an application-independent, implementation-independent mover of bits.