Re: [rrg] Issue #2 from Paul Jakma

[RJ Atkinson <[e-mail]>]

On 17  Jun 2010, at 15:03 , Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Tony Li wrote:
> 
>> In order for ILNP to be backward compatible and interoperable with legacy IPv6 hosts, it must use the exact same namespace.
> 
> The exact same, or a subset? Anyway..
> 
> I'm curious how backward compatibility is to work for applications accepting connections on ILNP-capable hosts. In particular, how to know whether to calculate the ULP checksum over the full L+I or just the ILNP style I?

This is described in detail in draft-rja-ilnp-intro.

> Looking further at the docs, it seems this relies on the Nonce Option having stateful semantics to indicate "this remote IP knows ILNP". How will this scale exactly? E.g. imagine servers communicating with large numbers of clients.

Scaling should be just fine.

Existing TCP/IPv4 implementations for web servers already keep 
a significant amount of session state for each TCP session.
This is known to scale adequately for very large numbers of
TCP sessions in several major operating systems (for example,
in Solaris and FreeBSD).

The additional ILNP session state required is relatively
small, and scales per-correspondent-node, rather than
per-TCP-session.

A typical web browser opens N parallel TCP sessions to the same 
server node.  So the ILNP session state should actually scale 
a bit better than TCP session state.

Yours,

Ran