On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 22:01 +0200, Pekka Nikander wrote: > One can implement a host-based solution in > the network, as the HIP proxy example shows. Or one can "squeeze" a > network-based solution into a host. >
Just because parties *can* do something doesn't mean they will. The tricky part is not to come up with a proposal that solves the problem, but to come up with a proposal that offers the right incentives to the right parties. > When solving the final target architecture, I think people should > think about the eventual, potential features it could give. And > then > work out the deployment path. > Well, the proposal needs to solve the main objective, which is to shrink the global routing table. As long as proposals meet that requirement, I'd take the deployable proposal over the feature-packed proposal that has zero chance of getting used by anyone. Deployability issues have hung up a lot of proposals on the RRG, and if it were easy to come up with a good deployment path for any proposal, I think a lot of the proposal authors would have put up convincing deployability stories by now, doncha think? - Dan Jen _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
