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

In einer eMail vom 23.03.2008 16:18:35 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt bill@herrin.us:

The new protocol will have to be dual-stack for a
few weeks of course; we can't just have a flag day. That's why it has
to be able to run alongside BGP on the same equipment.

Really Stephen, how did you think we were going to deploy a new
routing protocol? Start with small edge systems and arrange things so
that they receive immediate benefits from the upgrade even though none
of their neighbors has upgraded yet? That's crazy talk!

Regards,
Bill Herrin

You are so right, Bill, by pointing out, that the solution must be dual-stack.(and if there were even several solutions, then multi-stack). I like to go further and say, every solution must be incrementally deployable as it has to deal with a growing/changing internet even after being well deployed (like BGP which today still must be and is incrementally deployable).

I can't imagine a concept which needs a flag day, and if any one came up with such a concept he easily could be helped.

I am very much in favor of replacing BGP by some better solution, but for the start BGP is a big help:

The incremental deployment of a new protocol does not have to start from one single point in the network nor is it necessary that it expands along strict links from there.

BGP-based VPN (RFC2547 I think) provide some fundamental discovery mechanism for combining remote parts as to form some new structure (there the VPN tunnel mesh). It can be re-used as a starter motor.

Hence, I do not like the current discussion by which the incremental deployability argument is used for better qualifying the own resp. disqualifying any other solution.

Heiner