RE: WG next steps

["Craig A. Huegen" <chuegen@cisco.com>]

On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> Do we think it is worthwhile to continue down the network/routing based
> solutions? The lack of feedback on my draft suggests people aren't very
>
> But there seems enough interest in multi-address/host based solutions.

There is absolutely an interest in the network/routing based solutions.
It's just that the operator folks who will be using them significantly as
they're deployed probably aren't in this forum (or are trying to keep up
with billions of other things at the moment).

It is undesirable for a large enterprise to use a multi-address/host based
solution without a mechanism to interact with the network topology to
perform path selection.  Network operators know more about the viability
of paths (whether by technology or manual policy) than the hosts do.
Left-side longest-match is hardly a sufficient routing protocol and/or
policy control for a multi-provider topology like the Internet.  The
network *MUST* be a part of the solution -- enterprises want policy
control, and policy control should be centralized.

/cah

---
Craig A. Huegen, Chief Network Architect      C i s c o  S y s t e m s
IT Transport, Network Technology & Design           ||        ||
Cisco Systems, Inc., 400 East Tasman Drive          ||        ||
San Jose, CA  95134, (408) 526-8104                ||||      ||||
email: chuegen@cisco.com       CCIE #2100      ..:||||||:..:||||||:..