My personal prejudices:
I would certainly like to see us able to discuss several routing
architectures. However, what we are discussing right now is what the
routing architectures should accomplish. I for one am going to find it
very confusing to discuss in the same working group two architectures, each
of which is working against different requirements FOR THE SAME PROBLEM.
It would not surprise me if there was more than one viable architectural
approach to a reasonable next generation routing system. But if we can not
even agree on what problem we are attempting to solve, the discussions are
going to get very confusing. And when we are done I can not imagine the
IETF being able to make head or tail of the results under that
circumstance. It is going to be hard enough to explain one new
architecture that meets a single clearly explainable set of goals. To try
to get the IETF to be able to actual make progress on the basis of two sets
of goals as well as two sets of protocol(s) just seems unlikely. I prefer
not to set us up for failure.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 06:39 PM 3/4/02 +0000, Sean Doran wrote:
>I would really like to see it be possible for EACH of these
>routing architectures to be operated IN PARALLEL in different
>parts of the Internet, but then I get accused of smoking strange
>things sometimes, so take that with a grain of salt.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT