Subject: Re: one size doesn' fit all (was Re: other requirement? (was Re: [RAM] Traffic Engineering

From: "Fergie" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:44:24 GMT

Funny that.

You and I are in violent agreement. :-)

Cheers,

- - ferg

- -- [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa) wrote:

Everyone walks up and say "your solution sucks, because it means I have to
do
X, which is painful and contrary to my inherent rights, and I refuse to do
it". So you explain to them why the choice is X or nothing, and eventually
they swallow hard and bite down on X.  Then the next person comes up, and
the
process repeats. Eventually people get tired of banging their heads on the
wall, but it takes quite a while.

So my prediction is that eventually people will accept that to have
widespread
multi-homing, they will have to accept that entities have to have multiple
routing-names. Whether it will take even longer, because the Internet
community is now even bigger, well that's a good question.

How exactly, in technical terms, the multiple routing-names will happen (it
may be done through border devices, so that individual hosts don't have to
get involved, or perhaps we'll automate it somehow, as we do now with TCP
retransmission timeouts, which are so complex we keep people away from
them)
remains to be seen. GSE may look a lot better to people now that they've
seen
SHIM6.

And hey, if all else fails, there's always NAT.

	Noel

--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg(at)netzero.net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

_______________________________________________
RAM maiFrom [email-masked] Sun Dec 31 18:45:09 2006
From: "Fergie" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:44:24 GMT
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: one size doesn' fit all (was Re: other requirement? (was Re: [RAM]
	Traffic Engineering
Cc: [email-masked]

Funny that.

You and I are in violent agreement. :-)

Cheers,

- - ferg

- -- [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa) wrote:

Everyone walks up and say "your solution sucks, because it means I have to
do
X, which is painful and contrary to my inherent rights, and I refuse to do
it". So you explain to them why the choice is X or nothing, and eventually
they swallow hard and bite down on X.  Then the next person comes up, and
the
process repeats. Eventually people get tired of banging their heads on the
wall, but it takes quite a while.

So my prediction is that eventually people will accept that to have
widespread
multi-homing, they will have to accept that entities have to have multiple
routing-names. Whether it will take even longer, because the Internet
community is now even bigger, well that's a good question.

How exactly, in technical terms, the multiple routing-names will happen (it
may be done through border devices, so that individual hosts don't have to
get involved, or perhaps we'll automate it somehow, as we do now with TCP
retransmission timeouts, which are so complex we keep people away from
them)
remains to be seen. GSE may look a lot better to people now that they've
seen
SHIM6.

And hey, if all else fails, there's always NAT.

	Noel

--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg(at)netzero.net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 22:45:10 -0500 (EST)

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

    > I mean 'mandating multiple identifiers of the type which go into ACLs,
    > firewall rules, QoS rules, etc. for filtering/matching packets' is out.

Well, I don't have a problem with that.

	Noel