(The title is incorrect. ILNP for IPv4 uses an IPv4 option.) On 23 Apr 2010, at 22:57 , Robin Whittle wrote: > This approach would be significantly different from > the IPv6 approach. So whatever claims are made > about ILNP in IPv6 don't necessarily hold for its > application to IPv4.
The *architecture* is IDENTICAL. The only thing that changed is where the bits get stuffed on the wire. > However, if ILNP is to work with ordinary > applications, then it seems that it is stuck with > a 32 bit limitation on Identifier. (As best I can > guess how it might work.) Not true. > Please email me a copy of the paper. Unfortunately, Copyright Law (in Australia and elsewhere) means that I can't legally do so. > To use this, hosts need new stacks. Are you planning on this working > with existing applications? Yes. No application changes will be needed. > You can't expect me or anyone else to read all the papers > listed at your site: > > http://ilnp.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/ > > some of which go back to 2004, just to understand your proposal. I precisely do expect that. > It is reasonable to expect anyone interested in your proposal to read > the Internet Drafts, summaries etc. you post to the list. People > can't be expected to keep up with every update to these, but I did > read your I-Ds at the start of the year and made a concerted attempt > to understand your proposal then. You apparently didn't read draft-rja-ilnp-dns, which describes the L32 record used for ILNPv4. > Please make the above mentioned paper available on your site, or > email it to anyone on the list who wants to read it. You are suggesting that I break the law. > Sure - no-one is obligated to do so. Its just that if you want your > proposal to be widely understood and respected, as far as I know, > there is no alternative to patient and detailed discussion and debate. I believe a majority of list understands ILNP well enough already. Certainly the off-list queries about very minor specific details indicate that the folks sending those queries already understand ILNP well. People attending RG meetings tell me they understand ILNP (whether or not they prefer it). People in Anaheim were not necessarily enthusiastic about the Co-Chair's decision, but there were no complaints voiced about ILNP documentation or clarity in Anaheim You appear to be a statistical outlier in this regard. Probably not the only person, but certainly you aren't in the majority. >> RGs are not setup as debating forums. > > Yet they are forums in which debate frequently does occur. This one sadly seems to have become one, thanks to your presence. Other RGs I've been involved with haven't been debating societies. Ran _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
