Re: ocean: do not boil

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Keith Moore wrote:
> 
> > >   > p2p applications can be designed to use intermediaries,
> > >   > just like SMTP and HTTP. If I was designing an apps
> > >   > protocol today, I would definitely make sure it could
> > >   > be relayed between address spaces at applications level.
> > >
> > > => Are we in a position to mandate this?
> > >
> >
> > This is the Internet, so no. But we (or if we were lucky the IAB)
> > could make an architectural recommendation.
> 
> It would strike me as extremely bizarre for the IAB to recommend
> that P2P applications define their own addressing system and
> routing protocols when IPv6 offers reasonably good ones.

Who said anything about a new address space or about routing? 

Obviously we are talking about scenarios where the basic dual stack
mechanism fails due to a connectivity gap. You then have two choices
- resolve this by the sort of network level complexity Margaret's
  message refers to.
- resolve it at applications level. This may well involve an
  applications level identifier namespace that works everywhere, 
  like URIs or RFC 2822, but it doesn't imply replacing the IP 
  locator namespace (a.k.a. addresses) or the IP routing system. 

I'm not suggesting that v6ops should work on this. But it's the
way distributed computing systems are very likely to go, in 
self-defence. If the v6ops scenarios ignore this, they are incomplete.

      Brian