William Herrin allegedly wrote on 12/03/2009 3:29 PM: > On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Scott Brim <[email protected]> wrote: >> William Herrin allegedly wrote on 11/21/2009 8:41 AM: >>> If we'd like them to carry a >>> decoupled session ID in every packet and deal with it successfully >>> when the IP address for a particular flow changes unexpectedly, we >>> might want to mention that before they finish. >> Do you think routing and addressing requires a session ID in every >> packet? If not, let the upper layers find their own solutions -- e2e >> argument and all that. > > Hi Scott, > > Yes, I do think every packet needs a session ID, for much the same > reason that every packet has to have an IP address even if it's only > to a host on the local LAN that you could reach with only it's MAC > address. Any time the transport protocol relies on the IP address for > non-routing functions, it places a constraint on the structure of > routing system that isn't otherwise there.
I guess I should have phrased my question differently. What I wanted to stress was "Do you think ROUTING AND ADDRESSING requires a session ID" etc. That is, is this something that must be in a routing and addressing architecture recommendation? _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
