Dear All,
> I have to take the opposite view.
> Without saying that MPLS is "the answer", requiring that we restrict our
> work to only the current hop-by-hop view restricts what is possible
> significantly. It is reasonable to say taht we have to allow the current
> behaviors. But it is not reasonable to say taht we should ONLY allow
> current behaviors. If we allow "path setups" or "flow setups" or ... there
> are things that become possible with IP that are extremely difficult
> otherwise (I hesitate to say impossible only because folks find ways to
> twist the tools to get what they want even if we could not see a way to do
> so. But the cost is often quite high.)
I agree with Yakov, Radia, Joel and others' position that, at least within this
working group, we should not restrict ourselves to the traditionnal IP
routing paradigms. We should at least allow, and perhaps encourage, researchers
to explore other routing paradigms, be they based on *MPLS or anything else.
Since this is a research working group, we are not restricted to develop
solutions that are deployable within O(six month) as in traditional
IETF working groups. Clearly, the timeframe for a possible deployment
of the solutions discussed within this group is O(few years)
I hope that this working group can remain a research working group...
Olivier
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT