Re: Fwd: Minutes / Notes

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Noel;

>     > Please find attached Geoff minutes from yesterday. Please send comments
>     > to me _off list_ and I will add them.
> 
> I have a few technical (not editorial) comments on some points in the minutes,
> which are therefore of general interest...

A problem is that the minutes lacks discussioin on so many errors of
Iljitsch's proposal that yo are repeating my points at the meeting
(save TCP survivability as I said TCP is not IP, the Internet Protocol).

>     > Iljitsch van Beijnum: Obviously we can modify TCP without the API but
>     >  we see modifying the network layer
>     > Christian Huitema: The socket API constrains the solution you are
>     >  saying that the socket API is the problem.
> 
> Well, actually you could modify the protocol without modifying the API:

Yes.

LIN6 was and still is implemented so, though it has other APIs.

I said so at the meeting but the statement is missing from the draft
minutes.

> There is one issue with modifying TCP (it's a pretty easy upgrade - you
> define a TCP option which allows you to specify additional addresses and/or
> switch to a different address), which is that with an unmodified TCP on the
> other end, you then don't have this capability. But you may not care (see
> preceding point).

It is a little more hard. If you have several addresses, TCP limitation
on option length makes it not interoperable with unmodified TCP.

You may use multiple exchanges of packets for carrying more addresses or
for option length negotiation, which means extra amount of delay and
additional complexity.

An easy solution is to use separate address spaces (within 128 bit
space of IPv6) for leagacy and new IPv6 hosts. Then, you can use
larger header between new hosts. It is implemented and running.


							Masataka Ohta