Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Are you proposing SCTP? There is sadly not much more hope for widespread adoption of that as of IPv6.
My ID describes the architectural framework both for IPv4 and IPv6. Modification to TCP is discussed, for example, in: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-arifumi-tcp-mh-00 I still think something like that is necessary before IPv4 global routing table size become 16M (ignoring loopback/multicast/ClassE). Christopher Morrow wrote:
reading the ID that masataka referenced, it sounded very much like shim6 about ~4 yrs prior to shim6's "invention".
No, not at all.
I also don't recall seeing the draft referenced during the shim6 conversations.
Despite my ID saying: All the other processing can be performed by transport layer (typically in kernel) using default or application specific timing of TCP. Without TCP, applications must be able to detect loss of connectivity in application dependent way shim6 is wrongly architected to address the issue at the *connectionless* IP layer, where there is no proper period for timeout. Also, transport/application layer information such as TCP sequence numbers may offer proper security. Notion of connection (including half one such as DNS query/reply at the application layer) is essential for proper state maintenance. Similar layering violation also occurred to network layer PMTUD, which is why it is rather harmful than useful. Masataka Ohta