RE: old GSE idea

["Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>]

|    We only had IPv4 for around 15 years before work started 
|    on IPv6. So 
|    I'm guessing most of us will see IPv7 well before we retire.


You clearly underestimate the age of many of us on the group, for
which we all thank you.

   
|    <rant>
|    </rant>


Yes, the sockets API is a bit dated and starting to show issues.
I don't disagree, but that's a different working group.  ;-)

   
|    So how does this apply to GSE++?
|    
|    We now have TCP that groks pseudo headers with IPv4 
|    addresses in them 
|    and IPv6 addresses in them. We extend this to 83 bits out 
|    of an IPv6 
|    address. This can go on for a while. It seems to me that we should 
|    either not care at all about the IP addresses in TCP and other 
|    transport protocols, or offload this aspect to IP.
|    
|    This is the kind of stuff that doesn't cost us a lot now, 
|    but saves us 
|    a great deal in the future.


This is an excellent point.  TCP makes use of the IP address as an
identifier.  If we've separated identifiers and locators, then we need
to tweak TCP to just use the identifier portion.  After that, we're
pretty much free to change anything, as long as we maintain the
identifiers,
and not change the network layer protocol.  If IPv7 turns out to be
CLNP and we embed identifiers inside of an NSAP, that should be much
much easier.  [Note: this is an example, not a serious proposal.  CLNP
haters can re-holster their guns.]

I think that this is one of the benefits that's inherent in GSE, not
an issue with it.  So I guess I'm still not seeing the issue.  GSE has
the ONE hook that is necessary to upgrade later.

Tony