Hi Bill,
|Our recommendation should be applicable to IPv6. It may or
|may not also apply to IPv4, but at the very least must provide
|a path forward for IPv6.
... If there was a consensus from that
debate, it was that a solution process that failed to also resolve the
problem for IPv6 would not be acceptable.
The first calls for solving the problem for IPv6 and then considering
whether it can be backported to IPv4. The second calls for solving the
problem for IPv4 while avoiding any (unlikely) pitfalls that would
prevent an identical solution from working for IPv6.
The difference is not all that subtle.
Where are you reading sequentiality into either statement? I'm not
finding any, and certainly none was implied.
The RRG was chartered specifically to address the architectural issues. Not
the implementation issues.
That was, is and will continue to be a cop-out. An architecture is
dictated first and foremost by its achievability from the current
state of affairs.
Does no good to design an interstellar starship if you can't build an
engine that moves it. First figure out how to build an engine. Then
use the knowledge you gained to design a better starship.
Well, I think that we've amply demonstrated that we know how to build
_a_ routing architecture. We're using it. And I think that we are all
well aware that any possible solution must be achievable. We may all
have varying opinions about what is and is not achievable and the means
of achieving them, but in the end, we need something of pragmatic value.
Some of us (admittedly not all) feel that working out the architecture
prior to getting into the implementation detail is the prefered path.
Having been down the reverse path, I have to tell you that "cut once
then measure twice" is not a path to happiness. ;-)
This is exactly what lead to the chartering of the RRG as a research
effort, not an IETF WG and why we are chartered to work on architecture.
The output of the group is not supposed to be implementation or
engineering, specifically because that would be out of scope for the
IRTF. Cop-out or not, that's what's in the charter.
Regards,
Tony
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
