Keith Moore wrote:
perhaps architectural impurity alone shouldn't keep you from doing
something, but the fact that something violates fundamental design
assumptions should cause you to do some analysis and hard thinking
about the likely consequences of using them. and if you are in the
Greg Skinner wrote:
My general (cynical) opinion of NAT and other proxy technology is that
the marketplace spoke louder than the voices of the architectural
purists. (No offense intended.) However, given recent changes in the
economic climate, perhaps things will head in the opposite
At 04:12 PM 4/10/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
it's completely natural that people will try such approaches -
they are trying to address real problems and they want quick
solutions to those problems. but if the quick fix solutions
get entrenched then they cause their own set of problems which
are
I'm being a bit extreme but the point is that just because something is
architecturally bad doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, since these days it
takes us years to make any architectural enhancements.
perhaps architectural impurity alone shouldn't keep you from doing
something, but the
--- Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm being a bit extreme but the point is that just because something is
architecturally bad doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, since these days it
takes us years to make any architectural enhancements.
perhaps architectural impurity alone
Hmm... Depends on one's perspective. Do not underestimate the
timeliness of a solution. Timeliness is operational reality.
I'm very much aware of this. timelinesss is what gives you
(or denies you) the opportunity to deploy a new technology.
but just because something is timely (in the sense
At 01:27 PM 4/12/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
I'm being a bit extreme but the point is that just because something is
architecturally bad doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, since these
days it
takes us years to make any architectural enhancements.
perhaps architectural impurity alone
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:02:28 PDT, Pyda Srisuresh said:
--- Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
can be quite difficult. NATs seemed mostly harmless when they were
first deployed; now they're a huge problem.
Hmm... Depends on one's perspective. Do not underestimate the
timeliness of a
it's completely natural that people will try such approaches -
they are trying to address real problems and they want quick
solutions to those problems.
In particular, they will try such approaches if they are not
presented with better alternatives.
there's something odd to my ear
It's much worse than that.
In the End to End model, far too many of our problems require
changing all the end systems to solve. However, that's extremely
difficult to do, particularly as there is little or no incentive (the
DCA/DISA had guns, and control of the IMPs in 1982/1983 to force the
It's also bad that there is little or no integration of intermediate
system vendors with end system vendors (or vice versa), because that
results in insufficient sharing of information between those two
industry segments. The IETF should be facilitating information
exchange, but it isn't
it's completely natural that people will try such approaches -
they are trying to address real problems and they want quick
solutions to those problems.
In particular, they will try such approaches if they are not
presented with better alternatives.
but if the quick fix solutions get
12 matches
Mail list logo
