# >> True enough, but unfortunately, it's not done in a way that we can make # >> use of the identifier in the routing subsystem or in the transport # >> protocols. # > # > The transport protocols, well they generally act on behalf of something # > which can do the lookup and supply transport with right address, as long # > the DNS server does not require "who"->"where" indirection ;). # # The transport protocols unfortunately need the identifier in the packet to # demux connections.
the idea of a "transport protocol" comes from the OSI Reference Model which might not be the best conceptual fabric for re-thinking Internet routing. we know it's a "distributed system" and we know that various waypoints will or will not have "state", but i don't think we know that there will always be a "layer" that does what the "transport protocol" does in the OSIRM. i mention this because padlipsky's mantra about maps and territories came into my head just now as i was listening to folks talk about what the "transport protocol" had to have or had to provide. there's only a "transport protocol" if we decide to keep thinking in ISORM terms. and with that, i do indeed wonder if this has stopped being operational and if so, whether nanog wants to overlap THIS much with the irtf? refs: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0132681110/103-3252601-1266225
