Xu Xiaohu wrote: > OK, I got it. My point is the above scenario should be considered in a non- > clean-slate architecture.
Not necessarily. Some folks don't feel that it's necessary (or beneficial) to warp the architecture around the legacy host. Things do change. We no longer need to be concerned with our IMP number, for example. ;-) Yes, we could have a band-aid architecture. But then we have to live with those band-aids. Forever. No thank you. > Then each ILNP+ host should be assigned a globally unique home address just > for communication with legacy hosts ;) There's no such thing as ILNP+. If someone wants to use an ILNP host with Mobile IP to interact with legacy hosts, then yes, it will need to act like a legacy host and have a home address. > Not better, but worse in some cases (e.g., the above scenario), IMHO. You haven't shown that. All you've done is to restate that legacy hosts can't take advantage of ILNP. This was stipulated up front. Asked and answered. Let's move on. Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
