Re: [RRG] Tunnel fragmentation/reassembly for RRG map-and-encaps architectures

[Tony Li <tli@cisco.com>]

> No not worse. Good when it can be coarse. And when it can't because  
> of locator-set differences, then a site's allocation because more  
> specific.


I'm getting confused here.  Are you admitting that you could support  
host-specific mappings?


> If you do it at the session layer, then you don't care what  
> transport you use so you don't care if the transport can support it.


Ok, I'll bite.  What session layer is this that doesn't require host  
changes?


> > So we're postulating that we accomplish some level of mobility by  
> > connection level signaling.  This is certainly doable.  However,  
> > you seem to claim that you can do this connection level signaling  
> > without involving host changes.  I'm trying to understand how this  
> > is possible.  Implementing MIPv6 does seem like a host change.
>
> I think you can do it with application changes and not protocol  
> stack changes.


Isn't that worse?  Changing every application in the known universe?

Tony


--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg