Subject: Re: [rrg] Solution space summary: rejection phase: B is not blackand white

From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:26:00 -0800

>From: William Herrin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>>From: Brian Carpenter
>> But it is my opinion that B is a lost cause for IPv4.

>It is and it isn't.

>If you fix the layer 4/5 problem where the locator gets 
>mixed in with the session ID, why should the resulting protocol 
>not be layer-3 agnostic? You just put both protocol and locator 
>in the guid to locator map instead of just putting a locator there. 
>Presto! Done.

>Such a strategy-B protocol should be able to run on any layer-3 
>protocol available, which means it should coexist happily with the
>IPv4 backbone for as long a transition period as necessary. So in 
>that sense, it isn't a lost cause for IPv4. Quite the contrary, 
>IPv4 is part of the deployment bridge.

I apologize for my delay in noticing this dialog -- I'm currently
catching up on emails received during the Christmas break.

I'd like to support Bill Herrin's observation by reporting that in 2008
Boeing coworkers demonstrated that highly mobile (e.g., aeronautical)
applications that use HIP have a side benefit of being agnostic of
whether the underlying network was IPv4 or IPv6, including maintaining
session coherence when transparently switching between underlying
network systems using IPv4 and IPv6 (and vice-versa) during continuous
application sessions.
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg