[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Tunnel fragmentation/reassembly for RRG map-and-encaps architectures
No not worse. Good when it can be coarse. And when it can't because
of locator-set differences, then a site's allocation because more
I'm getting confused here. Are you admitting that you could support
If you do it at the session layer, then you don't care what
transport you use so you don't care if the transport can support it.
Ok, I'll bite. What session layer is this that doesn't require host
So we're postulating that we accomplish some level of mobility by
connection level signaling. This is certainly doable. However,
you seem to claim that you can do this connection level signaling
without involving host changes. I'm trying to understand how this
is possible. Implementing MIPv6 does seem like a host change.
I think you can do it with application changes and not protocol
Isn't that worse? Changing every application in the known universe?
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg