[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] What does incremental deployment mean
Hmmm, lets see what I have, just in my little old house:
Windows: 1 XP box, updates weekly, no IPv6
MACOSX: 3 Macs, updates weekly, dual stack
Linux: 1 Ubuntu Server, updates weekly, dual stack
Apple Airport 2 (G+N), IPV6, Updates ~monthly
NAS 1 ReadyNAS with some embedded OS (probably Linux), updates
yearly, no IPv6
IP phone 1 Cisco 7960, updates essentially never, no IPv6
Cisco router 1 871 VPN router, no IPv6 on image I run, updates about
every 6 months
Cisco switch 1 CAT3650 router/switch, no IPv6 on image I run, updates
yearly
Linksys WRT 1 Home router, no IPv6, updates never
Tivos 3 no IPv6, some embedded OS, updates ~ each 6 months
Squeezebox 1 no IPv6, updates never
MoCA ECBS 3 NO IPV6, Updates ???
HP printers 2 no IPv6, updates never
So I can imagine it being reasonable to handle host changes on about
half of these. At best. And certainly not with a flag day just inside
my little orandom.net domain.
DaveO.
On Mar 29, 2008, at 11:57 AM, Tony Li wrote:
|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
--
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