RE: [RRG] Consensus? End-user networks need their own portable address space

[Randall Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

Earlier Bill Herrin wrote:
% In theory, we could redesign IP from the ground up so that the
% hostname was king and the network addresses assigned to a
% particular machine could change at any time without disrupting
% communications. In practice, we're not going to and if we
% were going to it would be far beyond the scope of this working
% group. This leaves us at your conclusion.

There are various practical ways to make it possible to change
a node's IP address(es) without disrupting communications.

SCTP is deployed, standardised existence proof that this can be
done in the current Internet.  So far from there being only one
workable approach, we have a proof there are multiple approaches
that could be undertaken.

For TCP & UDP a range of approaches exist, including one
(which I think Mark Handley has proposed here) that is very
similar to what SCTP already uses for address agility.

O'Dell's GSE work shows this also can be done in other,
different ways.

As to the RG charter, my understanding is that changes
such as the ones I've outlined above are within the scope
of the RG.

(Of course, only the chairs' can clarify this officially; your view
of the RG charter -- and mine -- are just personal opinions.)

% Users care about capabilities. The only engineering mechanism
% which has ever been found that implements the capabilities
% you listed to the consistent satisfaction of the users is providing
% them with their own portable address space.

Again, SCTP is a deployed existence proof that other mechanisms
than portable address space do exist in the deployed Internet.

Cheers,

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com



--
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