RE: WG next steps

[Peter Tattam <peter@jazz-1.trumpet.com.au>]

On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Tony Li wrote:

> 
> 
> |   The interaction is more complex.
> |   
> |   For example, if the current path fails, it is detected by the
> |   transport/applicaiton layer. Thus, it is necessary for the
> |   transport/application layer tell the network layer use an 
> |   alternative
> |   locator.
> |   
> |   Later, as the original path may be resumed, it is also necessary
> |   for the transport/application layer tell the network layer try an
> |   old locator. Note that there may be several old locators.
> |   
> |   To do so, transport/application layer and network layer must have
> |   common identification mechanism of locators.
> |   
> |   It is much easier for the transport/applicaiton layer to handle
> |   locators directly. Then, all the information necessary for
> |   transport/application layer control is included in the IP header.
> 
> 
> All of this could be handled by a set of opaque handles to locators,
> without the direct interaction of the transport layer and the 
> locators.

If you did this, wouldn't you degenerate into something resembling the DFZ
as it stands in IPv4.  Is what you are proposing is some kind of global ARP
system?  I had suggested something like this a few years back and it was
rejected pretty much on the the grounds that a global cloud just may not scale.

Perhaps I just misunderstand.  There have been so many ideas and opinions
floating around that it's hard to keep track of them all.

> 
> Tony
> 
> 

Peter

--
Peter R. Tattam                            peter@trumpet.com
Managing Director,    Trumpet Software International Pty Ltd
Hobart, Australia,  Ph. +61-3-6245-0220,  Fax +61-3-62450210