Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

Scott Brim <swb@internet2.edu> Mon, 10 December 2012 13:10 UTC

Return-Path: <swb@internet2.edu>
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 7F82621F8E80 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 05:10:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 KmkKrn7gZQf7 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 05:10:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from int-proxy01.merit.edu (int-proxy01.merit.edu [207.75.116.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E807C21F8E7E for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 05:10:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by int-proxy01.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE520100071; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:10:42 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at int-proxy01.merit.edu
Received: from int-proxy01.merit.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (int-proxy01.merit.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1ZjgldGaqTgR; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:10:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from swbi2mbp.local (cpe-67-241-75-185.twcny.res.rr.com [67.241.75.185]) by int-proxy01.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 632D5100012; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:10:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <50C5DF53.2020404@internet2.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:10:43 -0500
From: Scott Brim <swb@internet2.edu>
Organization: Internet2
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
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> <09cc01cdc173$71323cd0$5396b670$@huitema.net> <03E5ABD7-EA3C-4C69-B3F9-16C8B6C6E512@tony.li> <50BE3EEB.20700@internet2.edu> <F502F124-32EC-40B9-9C3F-4E2DF5337B62@tony.li> <0d9601cdd2c2$57d22290$077667b0$@huitema.net> <2C77A48B-9A7D-4E02-B4F3-987E0AFC83F8@tony.li>
In-Reply-To: <2C77A48B-9A7D-4E02-B4F3-987E0AFC83F8@tony.li>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:10:44 -0000

On 12/05/12 12:09, Tony Li allegedly wrote:
> Yes, entirely reasonable.  When an application is going to be mobile
> across stacks, then another mechanism is necessary.  However, for the
> mobility of the stack itself, that support should be intrinsic.

Sure.  The network layer entity can have its own identification
functions for its own purposes, and higher layer entities can and _will_
have their own.

> Should apps have to know that the infrastructure has changed and that
> the active interface now has a different L3 name?

They shouldn't have to but after years of having nothing to depend on in
L3, they are not going to trust the lower layers to take care of it for
them.