Re: Use of TUBA connectivity

Vince Fuller <vaf@valinor.stanford.edu> Tue, 02 March 1993 18:39 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06133; 2 Mar 93 13:39 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06129; 2 Mar 93 13:39 EST
Received: from p.lanl.gov by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16082; 2 Mar 93 13:39 EST
Received: from noc-gw.lanl.gov by p.lanl.gov (5.65/1.14) id AA14968; Tue, 2 Mar 93 11:35:35 -0700
Received: by noc-gw.lanl.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00242; Tue, 2 Mar 93 11:34:33 MST
Return-Path: <vaf@Valinor.Stanford.EDU>
Received: from p.lanl.gov by noc-gw.lanl.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00237; Tue, 2 Mar 93 11:34:32 MST
Received: from Valinor.Stanford.EDU by p.lanl.gov (5.65/1.14) id AA14890; Tue, 2 Mar 93 11:34:31 -0700
Received: by Valinor.Stanford.EDU (5.65/inc-1.0) id AA05617; Tue, 2 Mar 93 10:34:51 -0800
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 10:34:50 PST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Vince Fuller <vaf@valinor.stanford.edu>
To: "David M. Piscitello" <dave@mail.bellcore.com>
Cc: "Richard (R.J.) Thomas" <rjthomas@bnr.ca>, tuba@lanl.gov, noop@merit.edu
Office: Spruce Hall F15, (415) 723-6860
Usmail: Pine Hall 115, Stanford, CA, 94305-4122
Subject: Re: Use of TUBA connectivity
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 2 Mar 93 13:07:08 -0500
Message-Id: <CMM.0.90.2.731097290.vaf@Valinor.Stanford.EDU>

    I see a number of benefits from running TUBA:
    
    1)	tangible evidence that implementations exist and
    	interoperate add credibility to this IPv7 alternative
    2)	use of tcp applications will increase traffic on the CLNP-capable 
    	parts of the internet, which tests routing protocols
    3)	increased numbers of end users on CLNP can drive the deployment
    	of CLNP in regionals and access networks that have not yet done so
    4)	increased operational experience for CLNP creates an incentive
    	for vendors to implement noop tools and SNMP MIBs for CLNP, etc.
    5)	allows for the implementation of the transition plan on an initially 
    	small scale

Isn't this, at least numbers 2-4, sort of "putting the cart before the horse"?
I thought the major selling point for TUBA was that the CLNP infrastructure
was already there; now you're saying TUBA should be deployed to help force
the deployment of CLNP. Sounds like circular logic to me...

	--Vince