[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Consensus? Solution cannot require host upgrades
- To: "Robin Whittle" <rw@firstpr.com.au>
- Subject: Re: [RRG] Consensus? Solution cannot require host upgrades
- From: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us>
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 21:43:34 -0400
- Cc: "Routing Research Group" <rrg@psg.com>
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=ZLADL+KvTewDR27F7F48SguakBJhB3otIptrlo+AEUGF86t5m9kpOe62sP/64iXg8asMg/Qk/vd4tPWnQZII3qr/XfQiFAQ4H+gqidQtaPLE315hNJlcMSetfcVsBv7kr+njuqaU2F9M4J8CdGr75sAZSpXJDvok/8yLEw2sR9o=
- In-reply-to: <483935BB.5080903@firstpr.com.au>
- References: <483935BB.5080903@firstpr.com.au>
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au> wrote:
> I think the map-encap schemes (LISP, APT, Ivip and TRRP) were all
> designed on the assumption that any solution to the routing and
> addressing problem which required host upgrades would not be widely
> enough adopted to make the required impact on the routing system.
Speaking for TRRP, that is correct and I consider the assumption to be valid.
> I think there may be a role for host upgrades if they improve on a
> slight performance problem which is inherent in the RRG-suggested
> scheme - but that problem has to be slight, otherwise not enough
> end-users will adopt the scheme in the first place for it to make a
> sufficient difference to the routing scaling problem.
I think the its permissible for the performance degradation on a
non-upgraded host to be serious so long as it isn't so serious as to
be "broken." If I can still telnet to and receive SNMP traps from my
Cisco 2511 over the new backbone then things are probably still OK. If
I need gateways and helpers and dual stacks then the deployment ain't
never gonna happen.
I think I'm saying essentially the same thing Brian Carpenter said:
>>If a solution is
>>incrementally deployable with no loss of functionality for
>>non-upgraded hosts, I don't see how we can exclude it a priori.
With a sufficiently inclusive definition of "no loss of
functionality," and no dual-stack escapism, that's about right.
> The problems with host upgrades include:
#0. Way too many different people have to do too many things before
the system can be deployed as more than a toy.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
--
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