On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:29 +1100, Robin Whittle wrote: > Whether or not Name Based Sockets is a core-edge elimination > scheme or not, I am not sure. I'd confidently say that it is _not_ a core-edge elimination scheme. Name-based sockets contribution is that it erases the hosts dependency (or preference) on a given IP-address (locator). On it's own side and on the remote hosts side. By providing the end-hosts with the name abstraction (and locator agnosticism), a core-edge elimination scheme might be easier to implement or even unnecessary if the need for PI addresses could be obsoleted completely (which I admit might be an utopian scenario ;) )
> I will write a critique of it and > see whether my concerns about extra host work and delays apply to > it. I don't think there will be any delays, all extra information is appended to the packets "in-band". There is no 'first packet delay' due to any pre-negotiations, the name exchange happens simultaneously, and the individual connections are not dependent on this information being fully negotiated before data can be exchanged. // Javier Ubillos
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
