In einer eMail vom 02.02.2010 20:30:20 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt scott.b...@gmail.com:
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. Scott, I enlisted 12 magnificent capabilities/characteristics/accomplishments of TARA. 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, etc. We shouldn't go for peanuts. Heiner
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
