> > You are arbitrarily calling network conditions "reality" > > without recognizing application needs as "reality". This may > > be why you persist in thinking that the problem can be fixed > > by creating an "illusion". What we need is not illusion, but > > to rearrange functionality so that there is a good match > > between what the network provides and what applications need. > > That could be because applications don't 'need' stability.
well, apps don't "need" TCP either. they could implement all of that themselves. and if they don't have stability, then they end up implementing much of TCP, along with something like mobile IP and who knows what. yes, all of this is technically possible, but most of us realize it's pretty suboptimal. also, we need to be concerned about the impact on existing software - we might could tolerate minor changes phased in over a period of several years, but we don't want to start over from scratch. > Unfortunately, there > are many that consider the bond between those layers to be sacred ground. there's a reason you put the wheels under the car rather than on top of it. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
