IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Wed, 08 August 2012 13:40 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37CAA21F853D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 06:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ih10FMJGRafd for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 06:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from trantor.virtualized.org (trantor.virtualized.org [199.48.134.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67FE121F85BB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 06:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.8] (c-24-4-109-25.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.4.109.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: drc) by trantor.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A2A41705A; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 13:40:32 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1485\))
Subject: Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <50221ABA.4020306@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 06:40:32 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4C14946B-97C8-40C6-BACF-668DF4E5B4D9@virtualized.org>
References: <20120808051929.717981A12D@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <5021F98A.9000509@dougbarton.us> <50221ABA.4020306@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1485)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:40:35 -0000

Brian,

On Aug 8, 2012, at 12:52 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If they are connected external to your network then obviously they would
>> have to be restarted ... but then you know that already. :)
> And any mission-critical application that can't survive a disconnect and
> reconnect is badly broken anyway. I've never understood why session survival
> was so highly rated; this has vastly complicated every discussion of
> multihoming for many years.

The Law of Conservation of Complexity[1]?  Forcing applications to deal with disconnect/reconnect means they're much more complicated than if they can assume the session is always there and there are many more applications (and application developers, particular those that do it poorly) than networks.

Regards,
-drc

[1] I thought I was being snarky. Imagine my surprise when I just discovered this actually exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_conservation_of_complexity

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email