Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1)

[Jon Crowcroft]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Keith Moore typed:

 >>I don't agree that abundant IPv6 addresses remove the need for something
 >>akin to a port number.   They might remove the need for transport-level
 >>multiplexing, but only if any host could allocate a sufficiently large
 >>subnet, and it's not clear that this will be the case.  However port
 >>numbers are also used to form names of connection endpoints, and we have
 >>some need for well-known endpoint names to reach standard services. 

this is debateable - if we used GSE/8+8, then the route glop could get
you somewhere and the site glop to a machine ,and chaning EID is not
such a crazy idea at all - there have been protocol stacks like this
and there are certain privacy and other security advtangaes (it was
used in a secure ATM proposal i seem to recall fro mcambridge
university computer lab about 7 years ago...)

cheers

   jon