[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] draft-rja-ilnp-intro-01.txt
On 2008-08-03 13:10, Tony Li wrote:
>
>
> |> IMHO they serve different purposes. The FQDN is for locating it in
> |> the first place. Once you have found it, then the "I" is good as a
> |> persistent node identifier for mobility and multipath.
> |
> |But does this function require a field that is present in all
> |packets,
> |and updating our transports to make place for this field?
>
>
> No, it's clearly not strictly required. One could clearly put the
> identifier in the transport header, for example.
Can you explain how to manage without it? Today a TCP session is
identified by a 4-tuple {dest addr, src addr, dest port, src port}.
[RFC 793 section 2.7]
In the brave new world we can't rely on {dest addr, src addr} so
don't we need another ID of some kind?
Brian
> But then it's not there
> for firewalling, which *would* be nice, or for mobility.
>
> It's a design choice, and it's a very nice and clean one.
>
> I asked exactly the same question when I first heard the proposal, but it's
> grown on me over the years and I'm now convinced that it's in fact a very
> good choice.
>
> 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
>
--
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