RE: [RRG] What does incremental deployment mean

["Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>]

|Even if all Windows 2000 or XP users were applying security patches 
|(which they aren't), making a fundamental change as this cannot be 
|deployed as a security fix.  By definition it is going to break a lot 
|of applications or at least change their communication patterns in 
|such a way that in the deployed base of O(million) various kinds of 
|bizarre apps and O(100 million) hosts the result would be a chaos.
|
|There is no way any vendor could unilaterally deploy significant host 
|changes in a channel meant only for critical software updates for a 
|product well beyond its end-of-life cycle.


Deploying host changes is tractable if it doesn't have a significant impact
on the applications.  If the semantics of the API aren't violated, then
there's no significant issue.  For example, one could provide a new
transport layer (ala Mark's proposal) in parallel with existing TCP and
there would be no disruption.

One could deploy GSE-style solutions for v6 and that would only affect v6
applications that embedded v6 addresses.  Also a reasonable approach.

Tony


--
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