Les, > You assume that the understanding of the realities of “blast radius” by all > parties is accurate and correct. I believe this still requires examination > i.e., that the actual “blast radius” associated with leader-based when > implemented correctly is not inevitably global.
The point of minimizing the “blast radius” is considering the failure implications when things are not implemented or operated correctly. If you’re not considering that, then you’re missing the whole point. > You assume that the risks associated with having multiple algorithms enabled > in the network (either as a transient or a permanent state) have been fully > vetted. I think this deserves further scrutiny. No question. If you have further questions, bring ‘em on. > You assume that there are real deployment needs to have multiple algorithms > deployed simultaneously in a network. I believe this deserves further > scrutiny. This should be a given. We are likely to need bug fixes. If we cannot migrate to another algorithm, then any algorithm becomes a vendor lock. > I believe we are closer to the beginning of this discussion than the end. Believe what you like. > The consensus call started by Acee was “whether or not we want to work on an > additional mechanism…”. > I agree that the clear consensus on that is “yes” – but what we have agreed > to is to discuss/work – we haven’t actually done the work yet. That’s fair. However, what is now clear to me is that it is possible. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
