If "it" is a solution to the problems of routing scalability, reliability, robustness, etc that the rrg was chartered to work on, then I do not believe we ever agreed that compatibility with all existing hosts was a requirement.
Deployability in such a way that existing hosts and existing routers can interwork with any solution, deployability such that there is value in incremental deployment, and migratability so that incremental deployment is possible are all things I would buy into. But I do not buy that we can not adopt solutions where the primary value requires changes in hosts, or in many routers over the long term.
And I do not agree that getting clear terminology is irrelevant to getting to such a goal. I have frequently found it very confusing, and a hinderance to progress, to realize that the person I was talking with meant something different by the terms he was using than I meant by them. Yes, it happens. But that does not make it helpful. Getting a set of terms we can agree upon, and using them, can be very helpful.
Yours, Joel Dino Farinacci wrote:
It is a problem whose solutions are tightly bound by the need for compatibility with all existing hosts and most existing routers - and by the need to ensure immediate benefits for early adopters, since the solution will only work if it is voluntarily adopted by most end-user networks which want multihoming, portability etc.I would consensus on this one.Me too. That's 3-0. DinoBest, ---- Xiaoliang (Leon) Zhao Sr. Network Engineer Public IP Global Network Engineering Verizon Business _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg at irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg at irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.