Re: breaking the IP model (or not)

[Scott Brim <ncc1701v at yahoo.com>]

At 01:27 PM 4/12/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > I'm being a bit extreme but the point is that just because something is
> > architecturally bad doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, since these 
> days it
> > takes us years to make any architectural enhancements.
>
> perhaps architectural impurity alone shouldn't keep you from doing
> something, but the fact that something violates fundamental design
> assumptions should cause you to do some analysis and hard thinking
> about the likely consequences of using them.

Yes.  So why don't we have a new design which decouples all the meanings 
for an IP "address"?

> and if you are in the
> business of selling boxes that violate the design assumptions you
> shouldn't misrepresent these to your customers.

Sounds like we have some agreement on the list.

> most of these hacks can be employed in ways that are mostly harmless,
> but knowing when they are harmless and when they will cause harm
> can be quite difficult.

There is precedent for the IESG getting draft authors to include caveats 
and limitations.

> NATs seemed mostly harmless when they were
> first deployed; now they're a huge problem.

Just wait until mobile IP-based "phones" take off!

...Scott


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com