Subject: Re: [arch-d] Re: [RAM] draft-iab-raws-report-00.txt posted to the ID repository

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 13:41:39 EST

I am glad that this IAB-workshop confirms my saying that there is no future  
with IPv6 and BGP.Both are children of the 90's. Also: it is not only the bad  
convergency of BGP (which is due to its flat design and which  is  also the 
cause  for instability(=routing churn) AND non-scalability.  Furthermore it 
prevents real-time traffic balancing for good. OSPF could do  better, but doesn't 
either as long as there is this SPF-dogma ( I accused it  four years ago in a 
longer thread "Rambo-SPF....") where each router behaves as  if it were the 
center of the internet :-(
 
Heiner

In einer eMail vom 15.12.2006 18:04:48 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

On Fri,  Dec 15, 2006 at 10:44:21AM -0600, David Ward wrote:
> Dave -
>  
>     It is better but, still not completely correct  (given the remainder of
> the section). The meta-point is that the doc  is a statement of what was
> discussed in the workshop. There are  factual errors in the doc in addition
> to what I cited (I purposefully  chose perhaps the least controversial in
> 7.3). Your answer below  implies that you would like the workshop doc to be
> correct vs leaving  it as a statement from the workshop and then having the
> problem  statement fully clarified. I suggest that you proceed forward w/ 
the
>  problem statement and not potentially revise history. Of course, it is up  
to
> authors and group ...

Well, what the report is  supposed to reflect is what
happened at the workshop. So I  didn't intend to revise
history, but rather clarify what was  said.

--dmm

_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss  mailing  list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

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