|Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|Would you mind collecting the old ideas (which you mentioned went back to
|1999),
Actually, 1999 was just the most recent time I had brought this up.
|honing them perhaps a bit (if they need a polish) and putting them
|out as a short Internet-Draft?
I'm not sure that would be a good use of my time. The main point of the
proposal I outlined in 1999 was to show that portable identifiers could
work and scale with minimal retrofits to the end nodes and no changes at
all to the routing backbone. It was not necessarily the implementation I
would choose if I were free to change the existing structure more. As
such, the proposal is subject I'm sure to a raft of aesthetic complaints
that would confuse the issue. There is also the problem that Toshiba seems
to have patented a subset of the my approach... I think the descriptions in
the archives serve their purpose well enough.
|I'm interested at the proposal, but I'd really like to see the definite
|picture of it, and I think that's the only way we can do it.
Until we get past the strong assertions that "it can't be done" I have
trouble investing a lot of effort in specific implementation details. What
do you think it would take to effectively dispel the summarization/aggregation
requirement myth? Could we perhaps consider strict source routing as a simple
counter example while realizing that a hybrid approach would probably be better
in practice? Or is the jump from strict source routing to hybrid too big to
make the case?
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
