Hi Bill,
You wrote:
>> I don't agree with the view that providing multihoming, TE and
>> portability by adding functionality to the network (DFZ, ISP routers
>> and end-user CE routers) is unnatural or undesirable.
>
> Hi Robin,
>
> As it happens, I don't agree with that view either. I think strategy A
> is pretty good and it plays to our very solid experience with
> tunnelling and VPNs.
OK, but your page's problem definition seems to embody assumptions
that the problem is lack of functionality in hosts.
> I do, however, think it's premature to discard other approaches that
> stand a reasonable chance of solving the problem. Strategy A has not
> yet proven itself in market-accepted running code. When it has, the
> other approaches can be retired.
Do you support rejecting all strategies other than A and B?
If so, then perhaps I could agree that we make it clear that Strategy
B, whilst not being completely ruled out, is very much a second-best
set of approaches, which should only be considered if the best
attempts at developing and then introducing one or more Strategy A
solutions fail.
Since Strategy B approaches are much harder to develop and introduce,
due to:
1 - Requiring wholesale adoption of IPv6 with modified host stack
API and applications.
2 - It provides benefits to adoptors only when the other host
in a session (stack and relevant applications) has been
upgraded too.
I find it impossible to imagine how a Strategy B solution could
succeed after the best one or more Strategy A solutions have been
properly developed and offered for adoption.
Because Strategy B involves what I regard as an undesirable
devolution of responsibilities, functionality and management traffic
to all hosts, I think we should reject Strategy B and persist with
Strategy A solutions solely.
If Strategy B looked easier to introduce than Strategy A, then it
could be trickier. However, I think that Strategy A is the most
desirable kind of solution and also the easiest, by far, to develop
and have widely enough adopted.
>> I support rejection of B, C, D, E and F, individually or collectively.
>
> What about G?
Oops - I mean G too, for the reasons mentioned on your page:
http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures.html
as well as the fact that it fails to address the problem in the
Internet a billion or more people rely on today: IPv4.
Regards
- Robin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
