In einer eMail vom 02.02.2010 20:30:20 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt

There  are a number of criteria by which we can categorize  architectural
approaches.  Many are not binary yes|no but rather  dimensions -- lines
between two extreme cases, with a particular approach  lying somewhere
along that line.  If you're going to categorize  different approaches you
have to start somewhere, and CES/CEE is as good a  criterion as any as
long as you don't treat it as alpha and omega.   It's just one criterion,
you have to consider others as well, and it's not  perfectly binary.

I enlisted 12 magnificent capabilities/characteristics/accomplishments of  
They can as well be considered as critiques to all other proposals. You may 
 consider each other proposal and ask yourself to which extent each of the  
12 criterions are being matched.
I don't think that the CES/CEE differentiation gets us any  further.What we 
should really care is a powerful networking layer.Which enables  powerful 
capabilities. Which can be extended,  later on, eventually, from  source host 
to destination host (both becoming topological nodes, without  resurrection 
of the scalability issue). Yes, later on, and not in a  first step.
I will not forget the IBM commercials where truckers found themselves lost  
in the desert and one  of them suggested "let's ask our loaded goods to  
find out where we are". For some people this may look funny. For the network  
layer, this is a disaster. And I do mean the internet network layer hereby 
for  sure. Scalability is only one aspect ( I know already the conclusion wrt 
 all submitted proposals: More NAT ). But there are further aspects and 
more  ambitious goals.
Like: IP-broadcasting the opening ceremony of the next or overnext olympic  
games to millions of IP- destinations.Like: geo-location sensitive MIP,  
We shouldn't go for peanuts.
rrg mailing list

Reply via email to