On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> Which raises the interesting (to me anyway) question: Is there value in
> considering a new protocol, layered on top of TCP, but beneath new
> applications, that provides an "association" the life of which transcends
> the TCP transports upon which it is constructed?
>
> I believe that if we had such a protocol that it would be a useful tool to
> solve many of the juggling acts that transpire under the heading of
> "mobile networking" as well as providing a way to continue (or
> "resume") connectivity after IP address changes.
Like you, I'll shuffle away in embarassment if this is already going on,
but it seems to me a heck of a good idea. I really don't like the idea of
tunnelling all the way back home to my measly DSL line when I'm sitting at
Interop behind a pair of DS3's, just so I can keep my sessions persistent
:)
I once accidently put my Sparc to sleep before I left for the evening, and
came back in the morning, realizing my mistake. I unslept it, and my ssh
session back home was still kicking. I was pleasantly surprised.
I shouldn't have been.
That is, that's the way it should work... I should be able to put my
laptop to sleep, hop on the plane, land in San Francisco, pull it back
out, unsleep it, and pick up where I left off, _without_ tunneling all the
way back home (ie: MobileIP). That's about as bad as going through MAE
East just to get to the ISP down the street...
And, yes, I'd gladly implement apps that were "association-aware", if such
a mechanism existed (and, Karl, if it doesn't exist, and you start hacking
it out, I'll write "running code" for ya :) ).
--
Tripp Lilley * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://stargate.sg505.net/~tlilley/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I get a lot of letters like, 'Dear John, I've got a dead alien. What
should I do with it?' One word: barbecue!"
- John Lovitz, A Yellow Pages commercial
