RE: ocean: do not boil

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

If the v6ops even try to address this they are going to not be listened too.  Its none of the IETFs business.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian@hursley.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:13 AM
> To: Keith Moore
> Cc: Hesham Soliman (EAB); 'Bob Hinden'; Margaret Wasserman; 
> Randy Bush;
> Bob Fink; Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: ocean: do not boil
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>