>>>>> "Ivan" == Ivan Popov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ivan> On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:46:18AM +0200, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
Ivan> wrote:
>> In other words, a general TCP connection migration facility.
>> Incredibly useful, but pie-in-the-sky for now.
Ivan> I can not imagine "tcp connection migration" :)
To put it another way, Tom is just asking for UDP. This is not a step
forward, it's a step sideways.
Ivan> Essentially, Coda does not have to be transport-dependent -
Ivan> but it is still rather hard bound to ip.
Not really, unless the people working on Coda/IPv6 have been
incredibly lax. It should just require an abstract notion of node
(client or server) identity. And a lot of wrist grease for each port
to a new node naming scheme. But like my next question, I see why
IPv4 is now unsatisfactory, but we don't need more than one IPng---
IPv6 should do as a global standard, even if used locally (eg for a
private net).
Ivan> In a sence it is bound to dns as well, as there is no other
Ivan> global distributed directory service to rely on...
Are you implying there should be more than one global distributed
directory service? I don't see why.
--
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.
