Thus spake "Scott Michel" <scottm@xxxxxxxxxxx> > As one other responder said, there is a need to accomodate different > addressing styles that separate identity from location. I agree with the > sentiment. So, [erhaps it is only necessary and sufficient to extend or > redefine IP's addressing? When you add in the (assumed) requirements of backwards compatibility with existing routers and hosts that don't implement a proposed extension, it gets messy real quick. HIP is a good start, but it's still only a BOF and the involvement is nowhere near what one would expect for (IMHO) the most significant IETF project since IPv6. > Or perhaps it's only necessary and sufficient to design a universal > application-level forwarding layer? (Warning: plug for my own research > called FLAPPS, http://flapps.cs.ucla.edu/) While that's certainly interesting in its own right, what I think DARPA (and the IETF) is looking for is something between the network and transport layers, not something above transport. S Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin