Subject: RE: ocean: do not boil

From: "Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:58:04 +0200

> p2p applications can be designed to use intermediaries,
  > just like SMTP and HTTP. If I was designing an apps 
  > protocol today, I would definitely make sure it could
  > be relayed between address spaces at applications level.

=> Are we in a position to mandate this? 

Hesham

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:17:52 +0200

> => Are we in a position to mandate this?

This is the Internet, so no. But we (or if we were lucky the IAB)
could make an architectural recommendation.

   Brian

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:39:34 -0400

> => Are we in a position to mandate this?

no.  and I find the suggestion somewhat naive.   it essentially
requires that the application define its own address space and
implement its own routing protocols.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:44:40 -0400

> could make an architectural recommendation.

It would strike me as extremely bizarre for the IAB to recommend 
that P2P applications define their own addressing system and 
routing protocols when IPv6 offers reasonably good ones.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:12:49 +0200

> routing protocols when IPv6 offers reasonably good ones.

Who said anything about a new address space or about routing? 

Obviously we are talking about scenarios where the basic dual stack
mechanism fails due to a connectivity gap. You then have two choices
- resolve this by the sort of network level complexity Margaret's
  message refers to.
- resolve it at applications level. This may well involve an
  applications level identifier namespace that works everywhere, 
  like URIs or RFC 2822, but it doesn't imply replacing the IP 
  locator namespace (a.k.a. addresses) or the IP routing system. 

I'm not suggesting that v6ops should work on this. But it's the
way distributed computing systems are very likely to go, in 
self-defence. If the v6ops scenarios ignore this, they are incomplete.

      Brian

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:59:40 -0400

>   locator namespace (a.k.a. addresses) or the IP routing system.

for the p2p app to work with an arbitrary mesh of v4/v6 connectivity 
it has to do its own routing using its own namespace.  whether you think
of this as replacing the IP routing system is up to you. but however
you think of it, it ends up fulfilling most of the same functions.