-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Tony Hain wrote:
> Mobile IP, and the multi6 DHT work are attempts to mitigate it through
> slight of hand at the IP layer, while SCTP attempts to mask the topology
> reality in the transport layer. (These are probably not the only examples,
> but they are the o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Tony Hain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[?Does this need to keep going to both [EMAIL PROTECTED] & [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > ... As far as it stands I think that HIP
> > is going the best way there is. LIN6 is flawed as it won't
> > scal
> Historically, since we have apps parked in that spot, there has been
> an insistence that all of the topology complexity get resolved in the
> lower layers.
uh, no. the design is for a clean separation of function between the
layers that know about network topology and the hosts, which aren't
s
"Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|The stack/API then maintains a list of routing IP's that
|are associated by that "IdentifierIP" and then replaces it
|before it enters the network with the routing IP that is
|to be used for actually routing the packet.
I've made this proposal several t
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
"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 ap
> Jeroen Massar wrote:
> My current idea puts it at the resolver level. The
> application gets the 128bits identifier, which
> actuall is a IPv6 address, either given out from a
> special registry or simply from an /48 that is
> already assigned to you. This address can be used
> for both routing a
26 August, 2003 21:12
> To: 'Robert Honore'
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Solving the right problems ...
>
>
> Robert Honore wrote:
> > Perhaps this proposal really requires another working group or
> > something.
>
> To b
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
The hard part is coming up with a way to do the host/location mapping
in a way that is simple, fast, cheap, secure, flexible and reliable.
Wouldn't we all start deploying, e.g., HIP tomorrow if we had a solution for
this? And, how might that solution be any different
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 20:21, Keith Moore wrote:
> what has changed is that we're now expecting a layer 3 that was designed
> for relatively stable networks of wired hosts to suddenly accomodate
> mobile and nomadic hosts and networks, without significant change.
TCP/IP was designed for such networ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Mika Liljeberg wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 20:21, Keith Moore wrote:
> > what has changed is that we're now expecting a layer 3 that was designed
> > for relatively stable networks of wired hosts to suddenly accomodate
> > mobile and nomadic hosts and network
Jeroen Massar wrote:
> [?Does this need to keep going to both [EMAIL PROTECTED] & [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Not as far as I am concerned. If we take the suggested path, the work is
clearly outside the IPv6 WG, and anyone on the IPv6 list that cares to
follow the discussion is now aware of it. I will be
[trying to keep this as brief as possible]
> In the ongoing saga about topology reality vs. application perception of
> stability, it occurs to me we are not working on the right problem.
agree.
> We all agree that applications should not be aware of topology. At the same
> time, application d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On woensdag, aug 27, 2003, at 13:18 Europe/Amsterdam, Jeroen Massar
> wrote:
>
> > I totally agree with your current insight that we need to seperate
> > the routing from the host identifier. IMHO every
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A very quick question about your idea. Does this layer have a
> protocol / interface to other elements on the network? Or are
> you proposing something more like an abstract API?
Simple question, complex answer ... It really depends on where you are
looking at it from
Jeroen Massar wrote:
> ... As far as it stands I think that HIP
> is going the best way there is. LIN6 is flawed as it won't
> scale and can't be deployed easily. Next to those I got my
> own odd idea and I will probably work it out and implement it
> as a proof of concept. Though timing on whe
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> The multi6 wg has been working on locator/identifier separation as a
> way to solve the multihoming in IPv6 problem for a while now.
>
> The problems we're facing (apart from the fact that there are
> many ways
> to skin this particular cat and everyone has a diffe
Dear Tony Hain,
Perhaps this proposal really requires another working group or
something. I seem to remember someone making a similar proposal a
several years ago on this list and it didn't seem to get a good
reception then. For what it is worth, though, I really do think it is
an idea whose
Robert Honore wrote:
> Perhaps this proposal really requires another working group or
> something.
To be clear, I was not recommending where the work get done, that is why it
was sent to the IETF list. I only cc'd the IPv6 list because it ties into
the recent discussion. In fact it is not clear
On onsdag, aug 27, 2003, at 18:20 Europe/Stockholm, Jeroen Massar wrote:
The multi6 wg has been working on locator/identifier separation as a
way to solve the multihoming in IPv6 problem for a while now.
And ever since they haven't progressed much unfortunatly :(
Hard to tell. There are two desig
20 matches
Mail list logo
