Re: [RRG] Hosts, DFZ, purity & incremental deployment

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

On 2008-03-18 02:17, Randall Atkinson wrote:
> Earlier, Robin Whittle said:
>                   If we used a new space for identification, that
>                   would require major changes to operating systems
>                   and applications on the hosts at both ends of a
>                   communication - which is not incrementally
>                   deployable.
> 
> 
> It is not obvious to me that changing operating systems
> (and/or applications) necessarily prohibits incremental
> deployment.  draft-rja-ilnp-intro-00.txt provides a specific
> example of a host stack change architecture that I believe
> to be incrementally deployable.  At least some major host OS
> vendor folks agree with that assessment.

A solution is incrementally deployable if it has a backwards
compatible mode where an updated host can still talk to a
non-updated host. I'm pretty sure that Robin's constraint
(no new namespace) satisfies that rule, and I'm pretty sure
that ILNP doesn't actually create a new namespace either.
It just redefines some of the rules for the RFC 4291 namespace.

Oh, and see RFC 4843 for where this line of argument can lead.

    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