ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: DARPA get's it right this time, takes aim at IT sacred cows

2004-03-16 20:03:23
Thus spake "Scott Michel" <scottm(_at_)cs(_dot_)ucla(_dot_)edu>
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 07:09:12PM -0600, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
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.

The immediate handwave would be "Tunnel it." I'm not denigrating
backwards compatibility, but a lot of good work has relied on tunneling in
the past, e.g., Mbone and v6-v4. I'm currently waiting with baited breath
the day that service providers provide v6-to-v4 as the special case to
v4-only hosts.

The Mbone and 6bone are different beasts, as they're about tunneling traffic
from capable hosts across an incapable core.  In the case of an identity
layer between IP and TCP, we would need to be backwards-compatible with
non-capable hosts and applications (not just non-capable routers) and so
tunnels don't seem a workable solution.

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.

Must find more copious free time. Must find more copious free time.

Ditto...

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.

You never know until you submit a proposal what DARPA **really** wants
even after you get through the program-speak.

All too true.  We do, however, know many of the IETF's needs in the
identifier/locator arena, e.g. for Mobile IP and IPv4/6 multihoming.  That
may be a good starting point to determine what, if any, additional
requirements DARPA has.

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