[85839] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Vixie)
Tue Oct 18 09:34:23 2005
From: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:23:00 MST."
<0B6C8B60-13B7-4B4B-9DD0-273B161EF3D4@tony.li>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:33:27 +0000
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
# >> True enough, but unfortunately, it's not done in a way that we can make
# >> use of the identifier in the routing subsystem or in the transport
# >> protocols.
# >
# > The transport protocols, well they generally act on behalf of something
# > which can do the lookup and supply transport with right address, as long
# > the DNS server does not require "who"->"where" indirection ;).
#
# The transport protocols unfortunately need the identifier in the packet to
# demux connections.
the idea of a "transport protocol" comes from the OSI Reference Model which
might not be the best conceptual fabric for re-thinking Internet routing. we
know it's a "distributed system" and we know that various waypoints will or
will not have "state", but i don't think we know that there will always be a
"layer" that does what the "transport protocol" does in the OSIRM. i mention
this because padlipsky's mantra about maps and territories came into my head
just now as i was listening to folks talk about what the "transport protocol"
had to have or had to provide. there's only a "transport protocol" if we
decide to keep thinking in ISORM terms.
and with that, i do indeed wonder if this has stopped being operational and
if so, whether nanog wants to overlap THIS much with the irtf?
refs:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0132681110/103-3252601-1266225
