Excerpts from Brian E Carpenter on Mon, Dec 07, 2009 09:30:45AM +1300: > I was thinking about commenting on this point too, but Christian > beat me to it. > > We *can* propagate changes to the numerically significant host > operating systems. It takes years, so any solution based on this > must be one with a completely incremental deployment model. One > view of the IPv6 deployment problem is that it depends on *both* > incremental deployment to all hosts *and* centralised deployment > by operators. That's the worst case, but seems inevitable for > an actual change of the IP packet format. > > So, I think that tells us that a solution that requires host stack > changes only, *or* infrastructure changes only, but not both, > is deployable. > > Personally, I wouldn't expect something called "routing research > group" to propose a strategy based 100% on host changes and 0% on > changes to the routing system. But we could conceivably propose > something based on changes to both, and that would surely be > a big mistake.
Right. And best of all is to start at both ends and work toward something good. Do something in endpoints that helps them accomplish their goals without depending on the network. Do something in the network that has the ability to help scale routing and addressing even assuming hosts don't change, BUT is designed so that as the hosts DO change that ability can be abandoned, and the whole system can become more streamlined. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
