RE: WG next steps

["Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>]

Shane / Tony,

>> Tony Li wrote:
>> Well Brian, I see it as being routing and addressing
>> issue. I realize that many people are interested in
>> attacking it with tunnels, but I see that as virtual
>> topology and not all that different.


> Shane Kerr wrote:
> There are also people interested in attacking it via
> transport solutions.  I guess you could call SCTP or
> HIP "virtual topologies", but I wouldn't.

>> Yes, there are security implications, but this IS about
>> how to find hosts.  And that's a routing problem.

> There are lots of ways to find hosts that aren't
> typically considered routing, e.g. DNS.

I agree with Shane. Although I would prefer a routing solution (it
appears to me that host solutions are a way to get around a network
structure that does not preserve end-to-end) I think that part of the
puzzle might be non-routing host solutions.

Michel.