Hi Eric,
|By contrast, people of our generation who went through numerous circuit |switching-versus-packet switching wars find the term |"connection-oriented architecture" very emotive. Are you trying to play |off of that emotion in this instance? Of course not, I'm much more dispassionate than that. Connection-oriented architectures have some significant advantages. That's why we ended up using them for RSVP/TE, for example. You can't reasonably set up an explicit path for a traffic aggregate in a connectionless architecture (with sane overhead). |Regardless, true |connection-oriented architectures always historically did resource |reservation and path establishment before a session is created. True, however, that's not a precondition. |In this |case, however, sessions don't exist at all (unless they were created by |other means (e.g., HIP)). True, it does have (partial) path |establishment but definitely not resource reservation. Lacking sessions |it can't be a connection-oriented system in my book. Rather, it is |something else entirely: a "worm hole" within a connectionless world. Ok, well, we live with different books. In my book, a connection-oriented system is one where point-to-point connections are the basic building block in the architecture. Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
