On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:38 PM, RJ Atkinson <rja.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> I'd like to probe for consensus on 2 general statements,
> which are listed below.
>
> NOTE WELL:
> 1) This is a personal note, so results are neither official
> nor binding on anyone.
>
> 2) Edits, corrections, and discussion are all out-of-scope.
> (The RG Chairs might choose to hold an official poll later,
> on this or some other set of statements; that choice is theirs.)
>
> 3) This is a call for an up/down unofficial & non-binding straw poll.
> - "Yes" to a statement means "I agree this is approximately true"
> - "No" to a statement means "I think this is entirely 100% wrong."
>
> For now, "waffle" votes of the form that this is partly true and
> partly wrong just aren't helpful.
>
>
> STATEMENTS & BALLOT:
>
> A) "The Internet continuing down the current architectural path,
> whereby site multi-homing increases the size/entropy of the
> DFZ RIB/FIB is not believed to be scalable or viable."
>
> [ x ] YES
> [ ] NO
>
> B) "There is no reason to believe that a scalable solution for
> site multi-homing will appear in the future so long as the
> Internet proceeds with current architectural approach to
> site multi-homing."
>
> [ x ] YES
> [ ] NO
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Ran
>
> PS:
> (I believe both A and B are approximately true, of course.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> rrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
>
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
