On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 12:28 -0600, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2008, at 11:23 , Erik Nordmark wrote:
> > IMHO it would be a lot more robust to define a new IP protocol
> > number for the "UDP with a MIC" protocol.
>
> Yes, in a greenfield world.
> The problem is that the correspondent nodes are random legacy PCs and
> such stuff.
> How do you handle "UDP with a MIC" in Windows 3.1?
> (Yes, that is a rhetorical question, since 3.1 did not have IPv6.)
>
But in-order to have end to end reliability, the random legacy PC and
stuff will have to have new code and application that understands this
new MIC so there must be changes to the legacy PC or this doesn't seem
to work.
> Gruesse, Carsten
>
> PS.: I'm not saying the whole ordeal is worth it. I'm just saying it
> can be made to work.
> Sometimes complexity like this is needed for political reasons.
> Convince me that it is.
> It will be much harder to convince me that there is a technical reason.
I'm not convinced that all of this complexity is worth the minor
optimization for this edge case.
geoff
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
