Hi Javier, Thanks for commenting on my possibly mistaken first impressions of Name Based Sockets:
http://christianvogt.mailup.net/pub/vogt-2009-name-based-sockets.pdf http://christianvogt.mailup.net/pub/vogt-2009-name-based-sockets-analysis.txt I will read the proposal properly as soon as I can, and will respond to your critique of my initial impressions ASAP. First I need to do some Ivip things and work on critiques of LISP and TIDR. I would be happy for you to coordinate the final text of the critique of Name Based Sockets. - Robin >> 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. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
