On Sep 13, 2007, at 23:00 , Karl Auerbach wrote:
The idea is this: An "association" is an end-to-end relationship between a pair of applications that potentially spans several transport lifetimes.
Wouldn't that be the OSI session layer (that IP doesn't have)?
taking a cue from ISO/OSI, the trick is that the association layer is merely a means for the applications to reliably exchange checkpoint names. What those checkpoint names mean is up to the applications - thus what to do if a rebinding to a new transport requires going back to a checkpoint is something entirely within the application and its networking library code, not some state that is stored in the net.
We already do that today at the TCP layer. Rather than reinvent TCP in all individual applications (all those checkpoints will be great for performance!) it's much easier to hide changes in IP connectivity from TCP. We also pretty much have that today, in the form of shim6.
Note thought that none of that solves renumbering, rather, it really needs better renumbering support to work well.
(I have not really considered the security implications - in the absence of some form of shared secret or other authentication on association re-establishment there would probably be a race condition in which an intruder could jump in.)
Seperating location and identity requires some pretty hefty security, otherwise anyone can impersonate anyone.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf