On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Robin Whittle <[email protected]> wrote: > 2 - That current host functionality is deficient, since hosts > themselves are incapable of providing multihoming, TE and > portability. > > Assumes: 1 - The routing system is not capable of, or should > not be required to, provide these things, at > least to such numbers of end-user networks. > > 2 - Hosts should be required to do this for > themselves. > > Your current definition of the root cause of the routing scaling > problem: http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures.html (5th) > is entirely along the lines of 2 above. However the underlying > assumptions are not stated.
Hi Robin, I don't see it. I describe deficiencies with the protocol where functionality improperly overlaps. I make no claims in item #1 about where in the system the problem should be solved or whether tackling it head on is the best choice. If you feel that the language is biased towards host-level changes, I'm open to making small tweaks to remove that bias. What would you suggest? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
