Weekly Routing Table Report

[mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta)]

Scott Weeks wrote:

> I have been reading your posts on IETF and here regarding the
> above and I'm curious as to your thoughts on John Day's RINA.

As you give no reference, let's rely on wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_Internetwork_Architecture

and restrict scope only for multihoming.

Then, it is true that:

 > 1972. Multi-homing not supported by the ARPANET.

which means current specifications do not support multihoming very well.

but, the statement

 > The solution was obvious: as in operating systems, a logical address
 > space naming the nodes (hosts and routers) was required on top of the
 > physical interface address space.

is wrong, because it is enough to let transport layer identify
connections based on a set of physical interface addresses of
all the interfaces, which is what draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-*
proposes.

That is, he misunderstand restrictions by the current specification
something inevitably required by layering.

 > It tosses all this on its head.

If you have some text of RINA denying the E2E argument, quote it
with URLs please.

						Masataka Ohta