|Even if all Windows 2000 or XP users were applying security patches |(which they aren't), making a fundamental change as this cannot be |deployed as a security fix. By definition it is going to break a lot |of applications or at least change their communication patterns in |such a way that in the deployed base of O(million) various kinds of |bizarre apps and O(100 million) hosts the result would be a chaos. | |There is no way any vendor could unilaterally deploy significant host |changes in a channel meant only for critical software updates for a |product well beyond its end-of-life cycle.
Deploying host changes is tractable if it doesn't have a significant impact on the applications. If the semantics of the API aren't violated, then there's no significant issue. For example, one could provide a new transport layer (ala Mark's proposal) in parallel with existing TCP and there would be no disruption. One could deploy GSE-style solutions for v6 and that would only affect v6 applications that embedded v6 addresses. Also a reasonable approach. Tony -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
