Summary: There could be such a bright future for routing.But not if
BGP, i.e. the distance vector algorithm, is considered a holy cow.
Heiner
In einer eMail vom 18.04.2008 19:29:10 Westeuropäische Normalzeit
schreibt lars.eggert@nokia.com:
Hi,
thanks for your note - it does really make things a lot clearer.
On 2008-4-18, at 0:07, ext Lixia Zhang wrote:
> Further, once we have surveyed the solution space, we need to
> develop rough consensus on the approach through the solution space.
> Arguing about 'incremental deployment', for example, doesn't help
> this at all. We need to first come to some agreement on the very
> highest level branches in the decision tree (e.g., do we do map-and-
> encap or translation or ???), and not worry about the detailed
> leaves. That is up to the IETF to wrestle with.
I hate to bring up the R-word, but I think before we can get to a
consensus on architectural or technical directions for a solution, we
need some consensus on what the requirements are for the architecture.
What are the goals and non-goals?
All the solution proposals on the table apear to have slightly
different sets of problems they address, based on what the proponents
of each consider important. The ongoing discussion intermingles
arguments about which goals are important to address for a future
architecture with which technical mechanisms are suitable to address
them, and that's confusing (well, to me at least.)
Lars
--
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