Subject: [rrg] ILNP needs no upgrades to IPv6 applications

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:32:35 +1100

As noted in my previous message: "Re: [rrg] Various misunderstandings
- ILNP, CEE/CES, "revolutionary", I have mistakenly stated or implied
that ILNP "requires upgraded applications".

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06105.html

I now understand from Ran that ILNP involves upgrades to the IPv6
stack which enable the host to fully support ILNP while running only
non-upgraded IPv6 applications.

I will post corrections to these messages:

  msg05952 (2010-02-04) Re: Terminology - CES & CEE again
  msg05966 (2010-02-05) Re: Terminology
  msg06075 (2010-02-20) RANGI questions

and will write a version 3 of:

  msg06089 (2010-02-22) CES & CEE: GLI-Split; GSE, Six/One Router;
                        2008 sep./elim. paper (v2)

I asked in (msg06105) to what extent ILNP would enable upgraded IPv6
applications to directly access its "Locator / Identifier Separation"
naming model, rather than relying on the ILNP stack to do this.

Ran also insists that ILNP is not a CEE (Core-Edge Elimination)
architecture.  However, I believe he has not given any arguments to
support this - so I continue to regard it as a CEE architecture.

  - Robin