On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Dae Young KIM <[email protected]> wrote: > What every packet has to carry is the node address(IP address), but not the > session ID. Session ID is a property of the layer up. In the current > Internet model, socket could be considered as session ID, which, however, > need not be visible in the packet header where the main job is routing.
DY, The consequence of that choice is a constraint on the routing system: because the socket's ID isn't carried in the packet, the IP addresses carried in the packet must match what the transport protocol expects or the packet can't be associated with the correct socket. If an identity for the socket was explicitly included in the packet, that association function would operate independent of the IP addresses present... Just as IP routing operates independent of the MAC addresses attached to the packet. On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Scott Brim <[email protected]> wrote: > No. I'm saying that routing doesn't care about identification > functions. Scott, To the extent that the identification functions place constraints on the operation of the routing system, it cares very much. Or if you want to look at it from the other side: the routing architecture places constraints on the permissible identification functions and those constraints have to be adequately specified. 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
