IPv4 -> IPv6 "bridge" ?

michael.dillon at bt.com michael.dillon at bt.com
Tue Oct 12 16:50:46 CEST 2010

> What needs to happen, of course, is that applications use application
> layer naming rather than network layer naming. Every time I say that to
> an applications person, I get a blanch and a blank stare. Then I wonder
> why they don't insist on using MAC addresses - if the layer violation
> is so obviously sensible to the network layer, why not the MAC layer?
> But then it becomes clear that logic has nothing to do with this;
> they're just going to do it.

I think that these people would be responsive to an RFC entitled

Howto Minimize Network Latency of Your Applications

that would advise people to do exactly what they are already doing
with one small change. After a timer expires and no return packets
are received, retry using application layer naming.

And if the application requires minimizing the variation in transaction
latency, don't even try the network layer naming, go straight to
application layer naming with no timer.

Give that a nice RFC number and a flashier name along with a clear
technical discussion of the causes of slow network transactions, and
you will see a mass movement towards doing the right thing.

--Michael Dillon

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list