Re: shim-aware transports

[Pekka Nikander <pekka.nikander@nomadiclab.com>]

Hi Geoff,

I just became worried when you started to infer that the IP layer  
might need to have state specific to different transport / session  
specific state:

> > > ... It also infers that an individual session may want to trigger  
> > > a locator change that appears to be an isolated request - in  
> > > which case there appears to be a logical need for dynamic shim  
> > > state forking in some form (i.e. a shim state may state in a  
> > > general host-to-host state, but individual sessions may 'fork'  
> > > out of this general state by requesting individual locator change  
> > > trigger settings, for example.)

But maybe I was misreading your words.

This is also very much related to what a locator really is, given  
that IP no more transparent...

--Pekka