On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 12:55:12PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Pekka, since the initial goal is no change to the ULPs, > the state is all going to be in the shim, isn't it? > (Or perhaps better to say, in a data structure initially > maintained exclusively by the shim, but perhaps accessed > by shim6-aware ULPs in a later stage.) Interstingly, when the "shim-aware transport" thread started on the list, I reviewed the charter and was somewhat confused as to the intention behind (what I believe to be) the operative/relevant requirement there, specifically o Changes in the addresses that are used below the shim will be invisible to the upper layers, which will see a fixed address (termed Upper Layer Identifier or ULID). and asked the co-chairs about this very topic. Geoff suggested several ways that this could be dealt with, including the fact that seeing a "fixed" ULID doesn't preclude annotating that ULID with various forms of information that may be useful to a ULP (i.e., a transport protocol). You seem to be suggesting a variant of that thinking. In all of the cases I discussed with Geoff, as well as what you are proposing here, the shim state is maintained by the shim layer. That seems in-scope and perhaps more importantly, reasonable (for now anyway). Dave
Attachment:
pgph3XT3BUuFE.pgp
Description: PGP signature