Re: mini-cores (was Re: ULA-C)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 19-sep-2007, at 0:10, Keith Moore wrote:

What bugs me is that I think that the existence of mini-cores (or more
generally, a large number of private interconnections between networks
using ULA prefixes) leads to a world where it becomes important to have
a particular kind of source address to talk to a particular kind of
destination address, and in which applications are expected to choose
the right source address in order to talk to a particular kind of
destination address. So the sources addresses available to a particular host end up being like a keyring. I don't think that's a good burden to put on apps, and I don't think that using addresses like authentication
tokens is a good way to go.

I don't think having a large set of source addresses with different reachability is a good thing, but it's likely unavoidable to have several.

If applications don't want to worry about addressing issues, the only solution is that applications don't get to see addresses in the first place. (The multi-address genie is out of the box regardless of anything else just by virtue of having an IPv4 and an IPv6 address.) The corollary being that protocols implemented inside applications must be address agnostic as well.

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]