[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: ocean: do not boil
- To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian@hursley.ibm.com>,"Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Subject: RE: ocean: do not boil
- From: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 02:16:49 -0400
- Cc: "Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <hesham.soliman@era.ericsson.se>,"Bob Hinden" <hinden@IPRG.nokia.com>,"Margaret Wasserman" <mrw@windriver.com>,"Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com>, "Bob Fink" <fink@es.net>,"Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino" <itojun@iijlab.net>, <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 23:17:07 -0700
- Envelope-to: v6ops-data@psg.com
- Thread-index: AcJj3VW4Zp1SksR+R0OfO77gjr+IkAAfbqyw
- Thread-topic: ocean: do not boil
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
>
>