[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RRG] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-00.txt



In einer eMail vom 30.05.2007 10:15:59 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt pekkas@netcore.fi:
.... 
3.6.  Decoupling location and identification
...
Solutions to both problems, i.e. (1) the decoupling of
    host location and identification information and (2) a scalable
    global routing system (whose solution may, or may not, depend on the
    second decoupling) are needed and it is required that their solutions
    are compatible with each other.

==> the only requirement (using the language described in section 1.2) I see
in this subsection that that the solutions are compatible with each
other. Is that the intent?  In particular was 'are needed' above meant
to be some priority?  What does solution compatibility requirement
even mean (in practice)?
Good question. Compatibility: IMHO, the solution must  provide a next-hop too. And this should at first be the only compatibility constraint. Otherwise it wouldn't be research.
 
Will say: while searching for a new solution, the compatibility issue should be ignored. However after a solution has been found, it is appropriate to look for a migration path and deal with compatibility issues.
 
Heiner