Subject: [RAM] Re: LISP

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 13:50:42 -0500

Earlier, Dino said:
% But for one thing, we are listening to the operators,
% because [if] they say no way off the bat, then the proposal
% isn't going anywhere.

The above is both true and quite reasonable for the LISP
proposal, primarily because it is a router-centric proposal
and the network operators control most of the deployed
routers.

I do not think it is true that network operators can
(or would :-) unilaterally be able to stop some other form
of scaling solution that involved only host changes.

Purely as a hypothetical example, if some alternative
scalable multi-homing approach existed that only involved
host stack changes, then the network operators neither
would nor could stop that.  Other factors (e.g. practical
issues with incremental upgrading of host networking code,
practical issues with incremental deployment) might well
impede a host-centric solution, of course.

Ran

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

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 11:34:46 -0800

> impede a host-centric solution, of course.

Agree. My reference to "operators" also includes IT operators in an  
enterprise managing their multi-homed site. In this case, they have  
to manage hosts as well as switches and routers.

Dino

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 15:06:16 -0500

On  1 Mar 2007, at 14:34, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> enterprise managing their multi-homed site. In this case,
> they have to manage hosts as well as switches and routers.

"IT operators" might well NOT be managing the hosts, whether
or not they desire to do so, think they are doing so, etc.

I know of many organisations where IT says/claims that it manages
end systems, but in practical terms does not actually manage
the end user laptops, to give one example.  Such IT folks might
or might not even realise when they aren't managing the end
system.

For example, consider a host that IT thinks it controls because
IT (erroneously) thinks the system is running Windows, but actually
the user has booted the machine [without IT knowledge that
dual-booting is even enabled on that system] into BSD or Linux,
rather than Windows.

Ran