> -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Tony Li [mailto:tony...@tony.li] > 发送时间: 2010年1月28日 16:15 > 收件人: Xu Xiaohu > 抄送: 'RRG' > 主题: Re: [rrg] A concern with ILNP//re: critique of RANGI > > 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. ;-)
How many people used IMP, and how many people use current Internet? The difference in scale may cause us to make totally different choices. ;) Xiaohu > 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
