Hi Bill, |> / RFC 1887 4.4.2 is obviously not functional with *currently deployed |> / network stacks*. It would need the kind of software described in |> / strategy B or H in order to be viable. Or do you disagree? |> |> It depends. | |If it's conditionally functional and the conditions aren't met then |it's not functional. Right?
Not agreed at all!! Why block a good solution for certain use cases, because there are (few?) other use cases that cannot use it? Why force an imperfect solution that has (strong?) disadvantages for some (few?) use cases? IMHO some of us are hunting for the holy grail. Let's keep in mind that the first *small* steps of a migration to a new infrastructure MUST provide benefits (Thaler - draft-iab-protocol-success). By the way, I think most conditions against (IPv6) renumbering are caused by violations on BCPs. I have strong objections against dictating a less optimal architecture that works in all cases, including the BCP violations. I think the new routing architecture should span both host / edge based solutions (using PA addresses, supporting host based multipath transport) and core based solutions (taking PI prefixes out of FIB of core routers). They are orthogonal. |> / I vacillated on that for a while and eventually came down on the |side |> / of calling it a different strategy. I think if the difference was |> / truly minor, IPv6 would have worked out a whole lot better than it |> / has. |> |> Maybe this can be corrected. |> Do you really think the Internet would work a whole lot better if we |go for |> this strategy? |> I am with you!! | |In my opinion, IPv6 layer 3 is salvageable intact for a strategy B |system, but layer 4 (TCP, UDP) will prove to be inadequate. Time will |tell. It is happening right now. The Internet has more and more mobile nodes. Many applications support lossy links and ever changing IP addresses. The TCP/IP model itself hasn't a session layer, but there is absolutely no reason not to implement something like that. We have SIP for good reasons. SIP provides session management spanning multiple hosts!!! Just an example. By the way, the term SID could be somewhat misleading. Lets distinguish transport layer ID (connection ID) from session ID. Teco. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
