Re: CELP (was RE:)

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>>> However, I believe that early, simple versions of a CELP 
>>> implementation
>>> may choose _not_ to have pair-wise entries. As you note, there is a 
>>> good
>>> reason for maintaining locator pairs. However I would expect the 
>>> simpler
>>> approach to be adequate for many situations.
>
> mb> I mean, the source address used by multihomed sites implies at 
> least the
> mb> return path and in many scenarios also the forward path (because 
> of the
> mb> ingress filtering)
>
> Do other folks also view this as a significant issue _today_?
>
> I still operate under the possibly-false view of an Internet that is
> mostly reachable. Perhaps partitioning is already too much of a 
> problem,
> for us to ignore this type of fine-grained mechanism?

This is very much the world of *today*. And I think we will have to 
assume that for layer9+ reasons the world of tomorrow will have to look 
similar, unless the concerns can be met in other ways.

> mb> About the simplified initial approach, i am not sure if this would 
> be
> mb> possible here either.
>
> Excellent.  We have something to debate, because I want to disagree...

I am not sure I follow what you are arguing here. Are you saying that 
just proving the identity of the other end from connection 
establishment until session termination is enough? I.e no global 
verification, just "continuity" verification?

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQDCajKarNKXTPFCVEQLyggCg6sTRF9rGlddIeflNmVVP6izKMUkAoPqW
IkNasMhgKJ4Ey9cBG5QlVVS8
=5rlM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----