From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> a - A solution which involves significant host changes - and >> therefore which could never be implemented in a reasonable >> time-frame.
>We'd certainly waste time by arguing about it as an abstract principle. >But there is evidence that new TCP/IP stacks can be rolled >out in the major operating systems on a timescale of a few >years, so I would be prepared to consider a solution that >includes incremental roll-out to hosts. I think we agree >that we're unlikely to invent a solution that solely depends >on that, however. In any case I suggest it's already off >the research table, since shim6 is already in the IETF >process, so not worth discussing here. Brian, I'd like to point out that an large number of embedded system devices are increasingly using IP networks for their communications. While I don't disagree with your observation concerning traditional computers (except regarding critical legacy systems, which can somehow manage to hang around for decades), I do want to push-back against any notion that we can afford to ignore embedded systems when we consider future routing issues. Admittedly I am perhaps too close to this issue to have a correct perspective, but this closeness does provide me with some awareness of the (many) differences between networked computers and networked embedded systems. --Eric -- 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
