Shiv,
The requirements document specifies only that any new routing
and addressing architecture/system support the hop-by-hop
model currently in use. It is intentionally silent on other
models. It does not require other models be used nor does it
prohibit them from being used.
That said, a personal observation is that the probability of
a new architecture/system being deployed is inversely proportional
to the amount of any required changes to end-systems. In fact, the
probability may well be a step function -- if you have 0.000 changes
the probability of successful deployment is 10%, if you have >0.000
required changes, the probability of successful deployment goes to
0.0000% :-(
Similarly, if a proposed new architecture/system _requires_ changes
to the forwarding path of routers, the probability of successful
deployment approaches 0.00 because of the widespread use of ASICs
in high-speed forwarding paths. ASICs have a rather long and
expensive edit-compile-debug loop...
But those are just personal observations.
At 06:59 PM 12/18/01 -0500, Shivkumar Kalyanaraman wrote:
>FOlks,
>
>The requirements doc does not say anything about whether changing in the
>routing system for the future should or should not entail changes in the
>forwarding paradigm.
>
>History has shown that CIDR, subnet masking and MPLS-style
>significant control plane changes have involved changes in the data plane,
>and in some cases mandatory...
>
>I believe we should leave the door open for such changes, but carefully
>police them
>
>
>-Shiv
>===
>Shivkumar Kalyanaraman
>Associate Professor, Dept of ECSE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT