RE: [RRG] Consensus? End-user networks need their own portable address space

[Randall Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

Earlier, Robin wrote:
%  End-user networks need their own portable address space.

Users care greatly about capabilities (e.g. ability to multi-home
for improved resilience/availability, ability to change the set of
contracted upstream providers to reduce communications costs,
traffic engineering, mobility).

Users do NOT generally believe they want or need "portable
address space" -- except as an engineering mechanism to
achieve the other higher-level capabilities.

So if there are alternative architectures that provide those
capabilities without requiring "portable address space",
then users will not *care* whether they have "portable
address space" or not (provided they can have the
capabilities in some other way).

Users care about capabilities, not the engineering mechanism.

Discussions here are indicating that there are several
different ways to provide those desirable user capabilities
-- and also that some of those approaches do NOT require
"portable address space".

So I don't think your consensus claim here is reasonable,
given the set of architectural options available to the RG.

Cheers,

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com




--
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