Re: sockets APIs extensions for Host Identity Protocol

[Miika Komu <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 11 May 2007, Keith Moore wrote:

> please no.  don't try to hide this stuff from the app in the low-level
> API.   the rest of the network keeps trying to force routing decisions
> on the apps in the absence of routing information.  ideally, the app
> shouldn't have to be doing any routing or address selection or
> anything.  but at present, how to cope with this kind of world is an
> unsolved problem, and the only place where experimentation can be done
> towards learning how to solve that problem is at layer 7.    if you
> cripple the API, you prevent that kind of experimentation (at worst) or
> (at best) increase the burden on the app writer by forcing him to write
> his own kernel extensions.
>
> that, and you still need to expose IP addresses for diagnostic purposes.
>
> what do you gain from trying to hide the IP addresses?

First, to discourage the use of IP addresses as referrals because 
application developer would have to fetch them using a separate function 
call. But maybe this is a weak justification... Second, the socket address 
structure is constrained to 255 bytes. It will fit "only" 1 HIT and 15 
addresses. Is this enough for e.g. routers?

-- 
Miika Komu                                       http://www.iki.fi/miika/