Scott, On Dec 7, 2009, at 11:06 MST, Scott Brim wrote: > 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.
I *very* much agree with all of the above points! Specifically, it's critical that we develop both types of solutions as different networks/domains are going to be vastly different in terms budget, staff, priorities and size/scale. For example, those with large size/scale may have a significant amount of 'legacy' equipment they have to maintain "as is" (or it would take [much] longer to 'upgrade' it in some form), therefore they're likely to start with a network-based solution. OTOH, those networks that are green-field, planning/obligated to do host O/S upgrades and/or small(er) networks may choose to start with a host-based solution. An analogy from a security standpoint is that hopefully most administrators realize that host-based firewall solutions are superior (particularly for laptops, etc. that roam outside a corporate firewall)[1]; however, 'legacy systems' may not [ever, or initially] support host-based firewall solutions, therefore a network-based firewall is necessary to provide protection to them ... The bottom-line is various networks (and, hosts in them) are continually evolving *and* are evolving at different time-scales. -shane [1] This would be analogous to host-based ID/Loc split solutions, assuming they provide adequate mobility. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
