In einer eMail vom 17.05.2010 20:39:49 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt [email protected]:
I will NOT be modifying the statement wording during this poll. (1) "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." (2) "The RG has rough consensus that separating identity from location is desirable and technically feasible. However, the RG does NOT have consensus on the best engineering approach to such an identity/location split." (3) "The RG has consensus that the Internet needs to support multi-homing in a manner that scales well and does not have prohibitive costs." (4) "Any IETF solution to Internet scaling has to not only support multi-homing, but address the real-world constraints of the end customers (large and small)." Ran, What is the purpose, what is the intention of this poll? I voted 4 times YES, including (4)"...but address the real world constraints of the end customers (large and small)". But I feel like being framed: When I address it, I get no response at all. I asked, do you hereby mean "must be DV-based or not". The response is total silence (and no explanation why not-telling to have reachability to XYZ guarantees that the (non-paying) customer won't ask for forwarding his data to XYZ. When I mentioned "mobility without the need of having a home agent", again, I get only silence. Wouldn't this be a major improvement ? For mobile users as well as for mobile nodes ? You want us to vote on your statements but you won't explain what you have in mind and why objectives like I mentioned are not of interest. Heiner
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
