As noted in my previous message: "Re: [rrg] Various misunderstandings - ILNP, CEE/CES, "revolutionary", I have mistakenly stated or implied that ILNP "requires upgraded applications".
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06105.html I now understand from Ran that ILNP involves upgrades to the IPv6 stack which enable the host to fully support ILNP while running only non-upgraded IPv6 applications. I will post corrections to these messages: msg05952 (2010-02-04) Re: Terminology - CES & CEE again msg05966 (2010-02-05) Re: Terminology msg06075 (2010-02-20) RANGI questions and will write a version 3 of: msg06089 (2010-02-22) CES & CEE: GLI-Split; GSE, Six/One Router; 2008 sep./elim. paper (v2) I asked in (msg06105) to what extent ILNP would enable upgraded IPv6 applications to directly access its "Locator / Identifier Separation" naming model, rather than relying on the ILNP stack to do this. Ran also insists that ILNP is not a CEE (Core-Edge Elimination) architecture. However, I believe he has not given any arguments to support this - so I continue to regard it as a CEE architecture. - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
