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

[Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>]

In general, I don't see how a solution to the routing scaling
problem is going to be incrementally deployable if it
depends on host changes.  Likewise other solutions to
"architectural" problems such as providing a new way of managing
address space which allows and encourages higher rates of utilization.

Why would an end-user upgrade a host to solve a problem which
doesn't directly affect them?  BGP routers having difficulties with
too many DFZ routes doesn't directly affect ordinary desktop PC
Internet users.

If the benefits only occur when a large proportion of all hosts on
the net have been altered, I can't see how it would ever happen.


I will assume that the upgrade provides some direct benefits for
whoever runs the upgraded host and/or to the people whose
hosts communicate with this upgraded host.  Here are some questions:

1 - Is it an operating system upgrade, or for the operating
    system and applications?

2 - Does the benefit occur when only this end of the communication
    has an upgraded host, or do both ends need to be upgraded.

3 - Does the benefit rely on some other infrastructure, generally
    accessible to all hosts, or which must be installed in the
    networks at one or both ends?

LISP, APT, Ivip and TRRP do not involve host changes, though there
has been discussion of host changes to cope with initial packet
delays which are expected to occur fairly frequently with LISP-ALT.

Ivip's ITR function in hosts is a purely optional arrangement for
when it is easier and cheaper to do this than to use separate ITRs.

  - Robin           http://www.firstpr.com.au






--
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