Re: Why don't we talk about segments/objects instaead of layers? Re: Lost Layer?

> The rest might be called "object oriented networking" and instead of
> "routing" we would have something like "dynamic flow construction".
>
>

Instead of looking at object oriented networking we would consider a more
general peer level application orchestration of network functions. Think
that applications may through requirements orchestrate the use of resources
such as lightpath wavelengths, error correction, etc. This does not also
have to be OO necessarily. New protocols (selection of functional objects)
may be dynamically negotiated among intermediate as well as end systems. We
could think of TCP as a special simple case and keep this as a fallback
default.

End applications and network relay nodes may organize the creation,
aggregation, merging, combination of several flows in a dynamic way. A
network may chose to add advertizing material to some content (different
business model!)

Current Network functions virtualizations (NFV) and SDN ideas would fit
into this framework.

The problem could be complexity/scalability as there seems to be no limit
to the processing at end systems and relays. But the wide range of choice
in terms of protocol (associations design) could lead to a much more
efficient and flexible world while also keeping TCP default support

Djamel