RE: draft-kurtis-multihoming-longprefix comments

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

On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Tony Li wrote:


....

> 
> |   > Yes, they both do.  People still don't like 'em cause they're 
> |   > "not the IP way."
> |   
> |   If by 'IP way' you mean that it is a change to the expectations apps
> |   have of the underlying architecture, then I have to agree. It is not
> |   clear to me that 16+16 is visible to apps, so maybe that 
> |   doesn't apply.
> 
> 
> 16+16 would be very visible to the apps.  In fact, any change that has
> independent identifiers and locators would be a change to the apps.  Because they
> are not expecting/allowing that.

I have had little feedback on my recent idea.  I am not sure if it is a
duplicate of other work or whether it will even work.  I believe if it works
(i.e.  scales reasonably and is reliable) then it would solve the application
level locator issue as the transport addresses are insulated from the
application socket structures and DNS structures.

....

> 
> 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