Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

Christian,
you are absolutely right. However,  avoiding any impact on the users has been the number ONE objective of LISP.
And now, by moving even to LISP-DDT,i.e. dumping allegeable worse variants, the consequences will be disasterous.
Heiner

-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- 
Von: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
An: 'Noel Chiappa' <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>; rrg <rrg@irtf.org>
Verschickt: Mo, 12 Nov 2012 3:13 am
Betreff: Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

>     > It does require a new suite of transport protocols
>     > ...
>     > the odds of ever reaching deployment on an approach which requires
us
>     > to abandon TCP and UDP are not good?
> 
> That's infeasible; you can't require changing all hosts. You need to see
if you can
> come up with some approach that avoids that.
> 
> (E.g. if we have location-identity separatation deployed, you could hide
the new
> locators from the hosts.)

I think that we are giving up too early on the feasibility of updating all
hosts. Indeed, any substantial change in routing and addressing would most
probably end up changing all hosts, or at least most of them. I also think
that a research group should not necessarily shy away from investigations
that affect all hosts. If research comes out with a brilliant shiny star on
the horizon, then engineering might follow. If the best we can do is hack on
the edges of current solutions, then engineering groups can definitely do
that, no need for a research group.

-- Christian Huitema

_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg