Subject: Re: [RAM] First cut at routing & addressing problem statement

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:38:26 +0200

On 05:54 01/08/2007, Robin Whittle said:
>Hi JFC Morphin,
>The missing point 3 is just a typo.

Thank you.

>  The other points you mention
>seem to involve long-term new architectural goals involving host
>changes.

Not that much. It is more a paradigm change that, I think, today 
TCP/IP can support - but not necessarily all its possible evolutions.

>I have approached the RADIR Problem Statement assuming it concerns
>a problem which requires a solution which is incrementally
>deployable and automatically enables existing hosts, without
>changes, to remain connected, but achieves important benefits such
>as multihoming, portability, TE etc. for many more end-users
>without adding to the growth in the global routing table.

IMHO there are several ways to achieve that. However, the real 
problem is that whatever the one being chosen it will have to 
co-exist with the current approach (designed along the old paradigm). 
In so doing it will live demonstrate that the Internet can support 
architectural multiplicity.

This means that the ROAP leads to the necessity of an IETF change of 
paradigm. And that its solution will be expressed under this new 
paradigm. Trying to express and solve it under the paradigm wich 
created it may turn being very complex, may be impossible?

jfc

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram