RE: [RRG] draft-rja-ilnp-intro-01.txt

["Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>]

|> |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?


So, one way would be to put the identifier into a transport option, for
example, and then only include it in packets when there is a change in
address.  You would continue to use locators as the pseudo-header in the
meantime.  Conceptually it's the same thing, just an encoding game.

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