RE: [RRG] Consensus? 4 points so we can make progress

["Fleischman, Eric" <eric.fleischman@boeing.com>]

From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] 
>> a - A solution which involves significant host changes - and
>>     therefore which could never be implemented in a reasonable
>>     time-frame.

>We'd certainly waste time by arguing about it as an abstract principle.
>But there is evidence that new TCP/IP stacks can be rolled 
>out in the major operating systems on a timescale of a few 
>years, so I would be prepared to consider a solution that 
>includes incremental roll-out to hosts. I think we agree 
>that we're unlikely to invent a solution that solely depends 
>on that, however. In any case I suggest it's already off 
>the research table, since shim6 is already in the IETF 
>process, so not worth discussing here.

Brian,

I'd like to point out that an large number of embedded system devices
are increasingly using IP networks for their communications. While I
don't disagree with your observation concerning  traditional computers
(except regarding critical legacy systems, which can somehow manage to
hang around for decades), I do want to push-back against any notion that
we can afford to ignore embedded systems when we consider future routing
issues. Admittedly I am perhaps too close to this issue to have a
correct perspective, but this closeness does provide me with some
awareness of the (many) differences between networked computers and
networked embedded systems. 

--Eric

--
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