Noel Chiappa wrote:
Apologies if this question is something that's been covered already, but is it the intent to recommend a single thing, or would the recommendation cover a list of things which fit together to form a solution?
The point is to propose a new routing architecture, as per the charter. If that comes in pieces (e.g., a mapping function, and a translation function), that's acceptable. However, multiple instances of a single component (e.g., two mapping functions) are not reasonable. Please make your own choices about what you're proposing.
If so, would a recommendation to do separation of location and identity be something that this RRG would feel is 'in scope' for it, or is that outside our area? (Saying 'we cannot see any solution to routing scaling _without_ separation of location and identity' is probably within scope, and amounts to the same thing, so I guess maybe it is in scope.)
Yes, making architectural changes outside of the routing protocols is certainly in scope. BTW, we took a poll last Friday and had a nearly unanimous agreement that separation IS required to solve this problem.
Finally, is pure scaling the only requirement for the future that the RRG is supposed to provide for, or are there other things the routing system should be able to do in the future?
Please see our requirements draft. Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
