Hi,
I had a conversation with a few folks in Mpls, and realized
that at least one of the points we were attempting to make
in the GroupB requirements was not clearly written.
This is an attempt to clarify that.
Several people have mentioned that restricting the
requirements to something that is purely evolutionary just
won't do, and have criticized the Group B requirements for
requiring an evolutionary approach. I.e. they are critical
of the requirement to evolve from today's network to
tomorrow's network and argue that a revolutionary approach
is necessary.
The evolutionary approach we are requiring has more to do
with the nature of the future architecture then with how we
move from the present to that future. What is being argued
for is that the capability to evolve be an integral part of
the architecture so that as the material conditions of the
network change, the architecture will be able to evolve to
meet those conditions.
The question then becomes whether we can get to such an
inherently evolutionary architecture, something that would
be radically different then the current architecture, by
evolution. From a hypothetical point of view, I believe that
if the evolutionary architecture is sufficiently so then it
should be possible to absorb the current architecture into
its evolutionary path and proceed from there. This is a
belief that remains to be proven. One of the first things
though seems to be the requirement to delve deeper into what
it means to be an inherently evolutionary routing
architecture. This is something I am just beginning to
think through and will probably send mail on in the future.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
cheers
a.
-- Avri DoriaInstitute for System Technology Mobile: +46 73 029 8019
Lulea University of Technology Office: +46 920 49 3030
SE 971-87 Lulea In US: +1 401 663 5024 Sweden avri@sm.luth.se
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT