[75994] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Petri Helenius)
Mon Nov 29 14:13:09 2004
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:12:42 +0200
From: Petri Helenius <pete@he.iki.fi>
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <g3k6s4o7ms.fsf@sa.vix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Paul Vixie wrote:
>let me put that another way, in case it's not clear enough as stated:
>
>tcp's existing reference to network addresses are a layering violation,
>and so anything we do to improve the situation will also be a layering
>violation, but what of it? deciding against making tcp "less pure" is
>not going to meet the needs and demands of the community -- and those
>needs and demands WILL be met, and probably in even less pure ways.
>google for a product or feature called "3TCP" to see what i mean.
>
>
But doesn't HIP fix that in a way that is already specified and it just
needs to be pushed forward if the community feels it fixes the "next
generation TCP" issue?
Pete
