Keith Moore wrote: > You are arbitrarily calling network conditions "reality" > without recognizing application needs as "reality". This may > be why you persist in thinking that the problem can be fixed > by creating an "illusion". What we need is not illusion, but > to rearrange functionality so that there is a good match > between what the network provides and what applications need.
That could be because applications don't 'need' stability. They want it, and I have been trying to recognize that providing it is the result we are looking for. At the same time, applications can be written to deal with arbitrary disruptions and reconnection from different topology attachment points. This makes the applications more complex, but it is technically possible. Adding complexity to the applications does not lead us closer to lowest cost for the overall system though, so we should be looking for ways to mask the complexity of the shifting network topology below. Our overall architecture is about reasonably simple building blocks, yet many of your arguments are about pushing complexity into those building blocks to keep the view from above as simple as possible. I have no issue with keeping the view from above simple, but forcing complexity into the lower layers is not going to get us there. That is why I think we need something specifically inserted between layers 4 & 7. Unfortunately, there are many that consider the bond between those layers to be sacred ground. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
