Hi, First, there was apparent consensus a week or so back that the terms "CEE" and "CES" are not useful, in part because different people have very different meanings for them. Robin continues to use those terms despite the expressed view of several folks that the terms aren't useful or helpful within this RG.
First, I object to Robin's "classification" of ILNP using those terms. Robin's use the terminology mainly seems to reflect his incomplete and/or incorrect understanding of several proposals, including ILNP. I note that others have had the same objection in the past on the RG list with respect to Robin's "classication" of other ideas. Second, ILNP *does NOT* require any changes to any applications. Applications that use the existing BSD Sockets API, for example, can continue to work properly *without modification* even if ILNP is in use beneath the API. I've said this before, more than once, but Robin continues to misrepresent ILNP -- apparently because Robin still doesn't understand ILNP. Robin's table is wrong, at least for ILNP, probably also for other proposals. For ILNP, his table should read: PROPOSAL IPv4 IPv6 APP CHANGE STACK CHANGE ROUTER REWRITES -------- ---- ---- ---------- ------------ --------------- ILNP Yes Yes No Yes Optional ILNP neither prohibits nor requires routers to rewrite anything, which is why "Optional" seems to be the most accurate description. This, by the way, is a major difference between O'Dell's GSE approach, which required site border routers to rewrite 'Routing Goop' and kept end systems entirely out of the path selection process. ILNP does not require router rewriting, and ILNP always involves end systems in the path-selection process. Now, someone else in the RG has started to refer to ILNP as a "revolutionary architecture". Nothing could be more wrong than that. In the English language, things that are revolutionary are by definition not backwards-compatible and always require a "flag day" transition. ILNP is both backwards-compatible (All ILNP nodes also talk classic IP, so can talk with any/all IP nodes just fine) and incrementally deployable (There are several different clearly documented ways that an ILNP-capable node dynamically and easily can learn whether a particular would-be correspondent node is ILNP-capable xor can only talk classic IP). ILNP is an example of an *evolutionary* architecture, and is NOT a "revolutionary architecture". I object to the mis-characterisation of ILNP as revolutionary. A lot of design effort went into ensuring that ILNP is evolutionary. Yours, Ran Atkinson _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
