At 11:21 AM 1/8/02 -0800, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
>While the above is true in principle, let's look at the practice.
>In addition to the presently used hop-by-hop forwarding paradigm,
>the only other unicast forwarding paradigm known today is the
>"explicit" routing. Given that explicit routing is supported *today*
>(via MPLS) *at the line rate* by quite a few router vendors,
>requiring support for explicit routing isn't going to affect the
>probability of successful deployment of the new architecture.
First, I was under the impression that Shiv was some new, currently
undeployed, forwarding paradigm. That is, something other than IP-
hop-by-hop or MPLS-explicit. My answer was tailored more to that view.
Second, the question of whether we need to support MPLS, per se, or not
is an important one. There are lots of things that routers can do at
line rate, but because they can do something at line rate is not enough
reason to require that the new architecture support that thing. Current
implementation abilities ought not drive the development of requirements.
In other words, we should require what is needed, not what we can currently
do.
Frank Kastenholz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT