Re: An idea: GxSE

[Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>]

Ran,

Excuse me but I was at the GSE meeting and the issue was no one felt it
was technically feasible at the actual 8+8 meeting.  Part of of the
technical problem was we did not have the operators in the room as we do
on this good wg mail list.  The other problem was we had no notion of SCTP
and did not get to the point Ohta San did by taking some of of the pain
away.  We also did not have the value of scoping quite down yet and that
may help but I am not sure.  But in the actual 8+8 meeting it was not
political.  Mike presented his case it was discussed and then an extended
case from that was presented by ISI folks, close to where we are no on
this list but it was not as clear as what we see now.

If politics happened it happened after the 8+8 meeting and after the next
IPng IETF meeting.  Steve and Bob do a pretty good job of keeping the
politics out of IPv6 for the most part.

I don't recall you were at that meeting but my age may be playing tricks
on me and if you were I apologize.


/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])


On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, RJ Atkinson wrote:

> At 13:56 25/06/01, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> >        also, remember why GSE proposal was not integrated into IPv6
> 
>         GSE was not integrated due to politics, pure and simple.  Lets 
> please try to make technical decisions over here in multi6, rather 
> than repeat past political mistakes.
> 
> >        IPv6 is designed based on IPv4 experiences, and tries to benefit
> >        from the success of IPv4.  if we add too many fundamental design
> >        changes into IPv6 (like 8+8 address rewrites on routers)
> >        we may not be able to success in IPv6, like IPv4 did.
> 
> Itojun,
> 
>         8+8 rewrites in a border router at 1/10 Gbps line speed aren't 
> worrying the major router vendors, AFAIK.  Certainly it doesn't cause me 
> to lose sleep at night.  However, we haven't yet decided whether we
> want to take that approach or not.
> 
>         It IS sensible to try to sort out what problem(s) we are trying
> to solve up front, without closing doors.  Then we can try to sort things
> out among various alternative approaches.  Stopping the discussion
> prematurely will guarantee failure, however.
> 
> Ran
> rja@inet.org
> 
>