RE: [RRG] IPv4: how bad, when to fix?

[jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)]

    > From: "Marcus Brunner" <Brunner@nw.neclab.eu>

    > we might also want to have consensus on what should not be changed,
    > what part of the architecture should stay as is and has proven to work.

Interesting point.

I think about all everyone agrees needs to be changed is the use of a single
name(space) for both location and identity. Past that, e.g the details of how
the path selection should work, I'm not sure there is much agreement. For
path selection, I suspect it's what Dave Clark called a tussle space: the
users and the providers probably have different ideas of how much control
various entities should have over the selection of the path.

As far as what people agree needs to be kept, I suspect that about all
everyone agrees ought to be kept is use of unreliable packets, and the use of
sequence-numbers/checksums/retransmissions to build reliable end-end
communication on top of them. We may wind up keeping a lot more - a great deal
more, in fact - because of practical reasons associated with deployed base
(e.g. replacing TCP isn't feasible), but that's different.

	Noel

--
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