RE: [EME] The virtual circuit trap mentioned in the EME charter

My interpretation of that sentence is that, in the signaling protocols we
design, we should minimize the number of machines that need to get involved
in the repair of a failure.  Mark Handley may have some additional
interpretation.

NATs are worse than VCs...there are some failures they can't recover from,
period.

PF

-----Original Message-----
From: Rémi Després [mailto:remi.despres@rd-iptech.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:45 AM
Cc: eme@irtf.org
Subject: [EME] The virtual circuit trap mentioned in the EME charter - need
for clarification

The EME charter seems to me very pertinent, and I like its clarification of
some real problems.
Although I have been involved in Internet protocols for years, and have been
active in the 70s.on virtual circuits (by the way operational worldwide, and
very successful, in the 80s-early 90s), I don't understand the sentence of
the charter: which says "Candidate protocols should avoid falling into the
virtual circuit trap, where routers  lose the ability to remedy failures
locally".

Could anyone, clarify what is meant?

In particular,: is it understood that NATs have fallen into that trap, or
have avoided it ?

Thanks.

Rémi Després

_______________________________________________
EME mailing list
EME@irtf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme

_______________________________________________
EME mailing list
EME@irtf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme

RE: [EME] The virtual circuit trap mentioned in the EME charter - need for clarification