>>>>> "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.