[RRG] Are host-stack modifications allowed or disallowed ?

[Randall Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

Earlier, Dino Farinacci wrote:
% 1) If you put Loc/ID functionality in hosts, then they
% will have to change. Don't want to do this because
% it kills deployability.

This question, for which Dino's view is expressed above,
is actually pretty central to the discussions here.


A) Some folks on this list (e.g. Dino) believe that the Routing RG
cannot select an approach requiring any host stack changes
-- because that necessarily precludes deployment.

B) Other folks on this list (e.g. Jari) believe that the Routing RG
can select an approach requiring host stack changes because
that is done by the IETF in the ordinary course of IETF work.


This is a fundamental difference in perspective and deserves
further discussion and thought by all.

If (A) is true, then certain proposals are ruled out by definition.
If (B) is true, then all proposals are really open for adoption.

I'm not sure what the RG Chair(s) think, I'm not sure what
host stack implementers think, and I'm not sure what the
IETF Powers-that-Be think while wearing their official hat(s).

As a purely practical matter, at least one host OS implementer
has a de facto veto on this question.  If that host OS is not
going to adopt a proposed host stack modification (or not
adopt it in a timely way), then the percentage of deployed
host OSs with the upgraded stack capabilities is very unlikely
to become commercially interesting/viable.

Yours,

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com


--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com 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