On Feb 12, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > Can you expand on that a bit?
I think the slides here illustrate some of this pretty well, and even illustrate how implementation optimizations that result in systemic state and churn are a very bad idea - but most operators don't complain because they have no CLI-esque visibility into just how broken: <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/74/slides/grow-6.pdf> <http://www.tcb.net/rr-thing.pdf> > Well, in their defense, I can understand people wanting more features from the > routing. Unfortuntely, IMO that basic architecture is not well-suited to > adding lots of advanced features (all the easy, low-hanging, ones have > probably already been picked), but changing to a different one is going to be > a horrendous undertaking. Yep, agreed. The thing is, network operators are coin-operated, rightly so, and deploying things like IPv6 before IPv4 is exhausted, or optimizing routing designs instead of developing new bottom-line or revenue generating features, just doesn't make much sense. Any incentive model outside of 1-3 years to operate or optimize a network service substrate just doesn't get much attention. -danny _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
