Dino,
It is not at all clear if it is a problem. In fact, I'll argue on some
points it could be a feature.
Sure. I don't want to make an argument that the delay/drop
characteristics of caching are horrible. In fact, while I know this is
an issue, I do not have any information about whether it is of
significant practical consequence. This why I'm asking you to find a
test for this in EXPLISP.
Well, one thing this list keeps doing is trying to draw the line where
architecture should stop leaving it for some other process, say
engineering, to make the really hard decisions. If the architecture is
too high-level and doesn't "draw a line in the sand", then the
practical architecture will happen after this step in the process.
So you can't punt very many things or you become irrelevant.
This is true, and I'm very eager to make the decisions about details
that matter. For instance, encapsulation, how the mapping function
works, etc. However, based on what I said in my initial mail, I'm not
sure caching is one of those details. It seems that you can implement
caching without impact, for instance, the mapping system. And you can
implement FIB caching in today's routers with today's Internet
architecture if you want. If you believe that is necessary then maybe
you should do that. But I believe the RRG should be more concerned with
the details that HAVE to be agreed upon.
Jari
--
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
