IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 13 November 2012 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4539821F87B0 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:24:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rZJcEVF9VUHK for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:24:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C46021F8527 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:24:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C157B557F4D for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:24:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30361C1AEA; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:24:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net
Received: from [10.10.10.104] (pool-71-161-52-236.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94BB3C1AE9; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:24:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <50A2D6BC.602@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:24:44 -0500
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dae Young KIM <dykim@cnu.kr>
References: <20121112234012.05F8E18C0CA@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <CAFgODJcP1zvwRJukJdnqjSR-78XAMB1nSxL32gjUQB+NqpgESg@mail.gmail.com> <50A18F75.8060001@joelhalpern.com> <CAFgODJcDAzaYPrWFEJhgeCjnN_M9tdd+pdHTiccd=Dz=1mYrLg@mail.gmail.com> <EC8FD781-E416-4AE6-BA99-F74FE2DDA14D@tony.li> <CAFgODJfMBJBxNJ_M1_L=K0f2DpbZvzOBUgLZ6sT+-y+JevGeSg@mail.gmail.com> <27E72BC2-C84D-469F-9667-7A749567B477@tony.li> <CAFgODJfBX0R90oiYnxWrgC1oyr5ZPTZJA23WWu=Dbqu=xmyYTQ@mail.gmail.com> <EA48576E-4953-4408-982F-9D48497F8975@tony.li> <CAFgODJeae5EwSr8aC4b3tGBMxKPZRcfKarUuuwmA1LZKjge6ng@mail.gmail.com> <E613F100-93DE-4AB3-B71D-7250EB6D57BF@tony.li> <CAFgODJcXaCX9th9nkogLhkJu7pQE3=-Yc7DWkGNgX15Rh1UQ8g@mail.gmail.com> <957297EA-FFF8-408A-A181-E57028C9B8E1@tony.li> <CAFgODJfMZZioTNXOsST42kTP_BT4-RsjR_ysQTnZLG5pjoBEdg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFgODJfMZZioTNXOsST42kTP_BT4-RsjR_ysQTnZLG5pjoBEdg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:24:52 -0000

Shim6 does exactly what you describe.
It may even  a reasonable approach, although i has not gotten traction.
It is, effectively, a locator / identifier separation in a v ery limited 
form.

Yours,
Joel

On 11/13/2012 6:17 PM, Dae Young KIM wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li
> <mailto:tony.li@tony.li>> wrote:
>
>
>     Manual renumbering is certainly the last thing that folks want to
>     do.  This is why we're trying to automate it.
>
>
> I think renumbering could also be automated with the IP hosts, albeit
> you might need a shim session layer not to break APP communications.
> This is a non-LIS approach which you don't buy, though.
>
> I might be interested in a non-LIS solution with no need for
> renumbering, neither for a shim session layer. Since it's a non-LIS
> solution even without a shim session layer, the host doesn't have to
> change at all.
>
> --
> DY
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> rrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email