On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Robin Whittle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the map-encap schemes (LISP, APT, Ivip and TRRP) were all > designed on the assumption that any solution to the routing and > addressing problem which required host upgrades would not be widely > enough adopted to make the required impact on the routing system.
Speaking for TRRP, that is correct and I consider the assumption to be valid. > I think there may be a role for host upgrades if they improve on a > slight performance problem which is inherent in the RRG-suggested > scheme - but that problem has to be slight, otherwise not enough > end-users will adopt the scheme in the first place for it to make a > sufficient difference to the routing scaling problem. I think the its permissible for the performance degradation on a non-upgraded host to be serious so long as it isn't so serious as to be "broken." If I can still telnet to and receive SNMP traps from my Cisco 2511 over the new backbone then things are probably still OK. If I need gateways and helpers and dual stacks then the deployment ain't never gonna happen. I think I'm saying essentially the same thing Brian Carpenter said: >>If a solution is >>incrementally deployable with no loss of functionality for >>non-upgraded hosts, I don't see how we can exclude it a priori. With a sufficiently inclusive definition of "no loss of functionality," and no dual-stack escapism, that's about right. > The problems with host upgrades include: #0. Way too many different people have to do too many things before the system can be deployed as more than a toy. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
