>...if we want to truly fix the architecture...
Assuming the "end-to-end" axiom it seems that the discussion so far circles
around a few "to". That could mean one of the following:
1. There is a universally accepted definition of the "end"
2. Any particular "to" defines its own "ends"
The #1. above seems unlikely. IMO the starting point of the new architecture is
a clear definition of the "end"-point in networking communication. That entity
is the one that requires identifiers. Also current multiple "ends" encourage
NATs, which will exist as long as the user definition of the "end" differs from
that of IETF.
If you see a merit in the above line of thought please let me know so I can
paint a perspective on the "ends" under IPv6.
Thanks,
Peter
--
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
