(Illustration by Gaich Muramatsu)
>>>>> "Ivan" == Ivan Popov <pin_at_medic.chalmers.se> writes: Ivan> On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:46:18AM +0200, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo Ivan> wrote: >> In other words, a general TCP connection migration facility. >> Incredibly useful, but pie-in-the-sky for now. Ivan> I can not imagine "tcp connection migration" :) To put it another way, Tom is just asking for UDP. This is not a step forward, it's a step sideways. Ivan> Essentially, Coda does not have to be transport-dependent - Ivan> but it is still rather hard bound to ip. Not really, unless the people working on Coda/IPv6 have been incredibly lax. It should just require an abstract notion of node (client or server) identity. And a lot of wrist grease for each port to a new node naming scheme. But like my next question, I see why IPv4 is now unsatisfactory, but we don't need more than one IPng--- IPv6 should do as a global standard, even if used locally (eg for a private net). Ivan> In a sence it is bound to dns as well, as there is no other Ivan> global distributed directory service to rely on... Are you implying there should be more than one global distributed directory service? I don't see why. -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.Received on 2004-04-15 19:27:20