>| Brian Carpenter Wrote: >|True, but while we're being pragmatic, it seems clear to me that the >|RRG will never reach consensus on a host based solution in any case.
>Tony Li wrote: >Interesting. Again, not everyone seems to agree with you. There's clearly a >case (that you yourself have invoked) that it is possible to upgrade hosts. >Thus, it seems like this is not wholly out of the question. I wasn't able to make the IETF so I don't have any insight as to whether RRG community is converging or diverging. Regardless, it doesn't surprise me that not everybody agrees with any given point -- RRG is too large a community for that. However, I resonate with Brian's initial observation because if we restrict RRG to routing only, then we also restrict the diversity of solutions under consideration and are therefore converging on a common solution. On the one hand, this is self-serving on my part because the solutions that I resonate with are routing only. Some may argue that such a limitation would eliminate the best alternatives. I have two counter-arguments to that claim: 1) I don't discern any strong consensus building upon approaches involving host modification so if they are a better approach, the majority has yet to become aware of their superiority. 2) If modifying hosts are out-of-bounds for RRG, then perhaps middleboxes can also be deemed out-of-scope as well? If this is the case, then we are just that much closer to convergence. My personal belief is that I'd like us to converge soon on a routing-only solution. I think that it is time to begin to wrap the theoretical discussions up and proceed to modeling and simulation and limited deployment experimentation. Failing that, I would like to better understand why the RRG community hasn't yet converged on the desirability of map-and-encaps as a desirable RRG vector. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
