Subject: RE: [RRG] draft-rja-ilnp-intro-01.txt

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 18:10:05 -0700

|> IMHO they serve different purposes.  The FQDN is for locating it in  
|> the first place.  Once you have found it, then the "I" is good as a  
|> persistent node identifier for mobility and multipath.
|
|But does this function require a field that is present in all 
|packets,  
|and updating our transports to make place for this field?

No, it's clearly not strictly required.  One could clearly put the
identifier in the transport header, for example.  But then it's not there
for firewalling, which *would* be nice, or for mobility.

It's a design choice, and it's a very nice and clean one.

I asked exactly the same question when I first heard the proposal, but it's
grown on me over the years and I'm now convinced that it's in fact a very
good choice.

Tony

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg