On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Scott Brim <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Scott, Telling folks what *not* to do is at least as important as telling them what to do, is it not? That's why the terminology has both a "must" and a "must not." Telling folks to *stop* using the IP address in the packet association process is very much a routing and addressing architecture issue. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
