Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

Mark Townsley <> Mon, 12 November 2012 22:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BCCC21F87AA for <>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:36:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.057
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.057 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.542, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GUD8AsWuM6Zw for <>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:36:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CD2621F87C5 for <>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:36:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id c13so764807eek.13 for <>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:36:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=AnHhdiNtkeW/GtMXEgJswAzXaZ5SZm+1qOlUPkETeao=; b=PtOz4bq8sE4SN2t4nhjcUij/SvinT0+KnU6pn14MqVuW5Le0mO0dmiBZRhzpeEW+GR PQfSOP//ihRQ+aR4fu0cguNpsal6MfQ/lbY0Tj06tN0FBdz70L2N4scL1V3M/hv1diL6 FU2H0MPEmlXmnL5m8om9TqdGzePGHDUbeTOWqSNlVHP+VZkedL60EwmgpFnAK89uv5Br JUk4fAbLIjUPvYKv2tuQgDz/rama0pTKudn8ORi4FcVumB1Ax6//JRrCCqJXuGT9n6pB 7DXoBv8xrVgQR4S7O8RORcbhvsBUlJMSYtGLWquO+A+PekMxz3C+1C0afyCHQe6UwMQj MVJw==
Received: by with SMTP id x42mr67992513eel.22.1352759766334; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:36:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPS id f2sm18656640eep.2.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:36:04 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Mark Townsley <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:15:57 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Tony Li <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnFPUNp3oyGC4RMoH21ziGb4cRnvhc8wLTJC6JGjy09bgJNio9EQgpGDt+EghCxIQ+q/g8a
Cc:, Noel Chiappa <>
Subject: Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:36:08 -0000

On Nov 12, 2012, at 7:48 PM, Tony Li wrote:

>>>> a design which requires changes to all hosts is, IMO, a non-starter.
>>> Why?
>> Practise shows that it doesn't work.
>> We can speculate as to why: my theory is that it increases the cost (in a
>> broader sense than just $/Euros/etc), and I think you need to have a pretty
>> low cost threshold to get new stuff out.
>> YMMV.
> Past experiences need not be a predictor of future failure.  ;-)
> The cost of software changes to the end user are now pretty much lost in the churn of maintenance releases and new devices.
> Thus, the real hurdle that has to be accomplished is to woo the OS providers.  Convince them to implement and distribute and that solves the deployment problem.  And to convince the OS providers, you have to show them the killer app.  Without a value add, it's not in their interest.
> But once you do have that value add, it would seem to be all downhill.

As a data point - we squashed 6to4 mostly by actively rooting it out in the hosts. We started talking about how it should go away in 2008-9. Modifications came out in 2010. It was essentially dead by the end of 2011. 3 years. But, only a subset of hosts and apps were causing the bulk of the problem to begin with - a subset that happened to already respond well to updates. 

The real question is whether "some hosts" is good enough or not. If you really need "all hosts" to participate, you have to ask if and when you are willing to throw the previous generation of non-self-updating webcams, TVs, Windows XP, etc. under the bus. 

- Mark

> Tony
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list