"Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|Dan Lanciani wrote:
|> |So you prove my original point, 'there is a sacred invariant, and we
|> |must avoid messing with the app / transport interface at all costs'.
|>
|> As a practical matter, this is probably true.
|
|Are you saying that for existing apps we can't change (in which case I
|agree), or that the IETF can't change (in which case I might still agree,
|but it has noting to do with practicality).
The IETF can change (in the sense of adding a new interface in parallel
to the existing ones) but application authors will continue to use the
old interfaces not only in new versions of existing applications but in
completely new applications. End users will not benefit from the new
interface unless they exert very close control over the applications they
use. This might actually work well in an enterprise where most all the
applications are in-house anyway, but in general end users aren't going
to understand the distinction. There will be confusion over why some
applications seem to work with a particular level of (in)stability while
others do not. There will be much finger pointing. As a practical matter,
end users will still be stuck paying for the level of address stability
that makes their least-well-behaved (but vital) application happy.
Dan Lanciani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
