North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

  • From: Paul Vixie
  • Date: Tue Oct 18 09:35:57 2005

# >> 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?