At 01:27 PM 4/12/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > I'm being a bit extreme but the point is that just because something is
> > architecturally bad doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, since these
> days it
> > takes us years to make any architectural enhancements.
>
>perhaps architectural impurity alone shouldn't keep you from doing
>something, but the fact that something violates fundamental design
>assumptions should cause you to do some analysis and hard thinking
>about the likely consequences of using them.
Yes. So why don't we have a new design which decouples all the meanings
for an IP "address"?
>and if you are in the
>business of selling boxes that violate the design assumptions you
>shouldn't misrepresent these to your customers.
Sounds like we have some agreement on the list.
>most of these hacks can be employed in ways that are mostly harmless,
>but knowing when they are harmless and when they will cause harm
>can be quite difficult.
There is precedent for the IESG getting draft authors to include caveats
and limitations.
>NATs seemed mostly harmless when they were
>first deployed; now they're a huge problem.
Just wait until mobile IP-based "phones" take off!
...Scott
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
