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

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-02-21 01:30, Robin Whittle wrote:
> 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.

However, all hosts are not created equal. If a solution required
a specific type of host to be updated, that might be quite well
linked to economic incentives and therefore deployable. I'm thinking
of a solution that needed host updates only in servers that are
globally visible (typically those in DMZs), but not in client or
generic p2p hosts. Since it is those globally visible servers that
are the main customer base for PI multihoming, they might well be
incented to update their stack to support some form of loc-id solution.

   Brian

--
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