Subject: Re: other requirement? (was Re: [RAM] Traffic Engineering

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:30:04 -0500 (EST)

> From: Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]>

    > It's pretty obviosu that there would be considerable benefits in terms
    > of reachability and resiliency in *today's IPv4 world* if each and
    > every host ran a routing daemon and participated in the IGP(s) of the
    > network(s) on which they are deployed. 

Except that I don't know of any routing experts who are proposing that hosts
"participate[] in the IGP(s) of the network(s) on which they are deployed" -
at least, for any current IGP's, and in any routing architecture that looks
anything at all like the current one (i.e. hop-by-hop path selection, using
an overall Destination-Vector paradigm).

So let's dispense with that pointless straw man, OK?

	Noel

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

---

From: Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 13:47:36 -0800

> So let's dispense with that pointless straw man, OK?

This was the closest analogy I could think of to what has been  
proposed with SHIM6 and related proposals in terms of endpoints  
making path selection decisions for themselves.  Would virtual IPs on  
servers would be a better analogy?  Is there some other paradigm or  
architecture in place today which would serve as a useful analogy in  
terms of extrapolating the need for/desirability of hosts making path  
selection decisions?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]> // 408.527.6376 voice

		All battles are perpetual.

     		   -- Milton Friedman