Re: [RRG] What does incremental deployment mean

[jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)]

    > From: Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com>

    > The approach that map implemented by hosts and encapsulation
    > implemented by ITRs is incremental deployable. If hosts have not been
    > changed to support this capability, the ITR can implement the map and
    > encapsulation together. The upgraded hosts will not suffer the initial
    > packet loss/latency pain.

This does sound like an example of the approach I gave earlier; unmodified
hosts 'work', although they do not work 'well'.


    > From: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us>

    >> Any solution that *requires* host changes is infeasible. End of story.

    > I'm not comfortable with quite that broad a statement. Consider the
    > following scenario:
    > ... Non-upgraded hosts still work, but they suffer a 10% performance
    > penalty and certain diagnostic tools (like traceroute) malfunction.
    > ...
    > I'd go for a slightly more moderate statement: A solution is infeasible
    > if host changes are a -prerequisite-.

Umm, I thought that was just what I said (as the following comment from my
orignal post says):

    >> The support for unmodified hosts has to work (and note, "work" !=
    >> "work well")

I'm perfectly happy with "prerequisite" instead of "required" - to me, they
meant exactly the same thing.

	Noel

--
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