Pekka Savola wrote: > On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Joe Touch wrote: > >>> Case 1: Tunnelling a protocol over itself >>> ========================================== >>> >>> Examples of this include IPsec in tunnel mode, GTP, and other forms of >>> IP-over-IP tunnelling. My basic concern with this kind of tunnelling >>> is that it enforces two different _semantics_ to a single identifier >>> space, and therefore makes the system more brittle. Conversely, the >>> architecture should provide functionality so that such overloaded >>> semantics and brittleness is not needed. >> >> >> The address spaces are different, so different semantics are OK. The >> address inside the tunnel is (or should be) interpreted in the context >> of the tunnel, just as an applications memory address is interpreted in >> the context of the page table. > > I think Pekka N.'s point here was "why do we need different address > spaces?" or "why do users want different address spaces?"
See VM ;-) We also have plenty of cases - P2P nets use other IDs. Multicast adds a set of addresses that the base doesn't handle. Deploying any new protocol - most recently IPv6 - using IPv4 as a base. Joe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
