Having gone back to figure out what "It" in the below quoted text is, I
disagree.
If "it" is a solution to the problems of routing scalability,
reliability, robustness, etc that the rrg was chartered to work on, then
I do not believe we ever agreed that compatibility with all existing
hosts was a requirement.
Deployability in such a way that existing hosts and existing routers can
interwork with any solution, deployability such that there is value in
incremental deployment, and migratability so that incremental deployment
is possible are all things I would buy into. But I do not buy that we
can not adopt solutions where the primary value requires changes in
hosts, or in many routers over the long term.
And I do not agree that getting clear terminology is irrelevant to
getting to such a goal. I have frequently found it very confusing, and
a hinderance to progress, to realize that the person I was talking with
meant something different by the terms he was using than I meant by
them. Yes, it happens. But that does not make it helpful. Getting a
set of terms we can agree upon, and using them, can be very helpful.
Yours,
Joel
Dino Farinacci wrote:
It is a problem whose solutions are tightly bound by the need for
compatibility with all existing hosts and most existing routers - and
by the need to ensure immediate benefits for early adopters, since
the solution will only work if it is voluntarily adopted by most
end-user networks which want multihoming, portability etc.
I would consensus on this one.
Me too. That's 3-0.
Dino
Best,
----
Xiaoliang (Leon) Zhao
Sr. Network Engineer
Public IP Global Network Engineering
Verizon Business
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
