This brings us back to the discussion of the
"no flag day" requirement in the "Hypernet"
migration model (and is related to what
Howard has just said). Nothing prevents us :)
from introducing a separate network, "the
Hypernet", based on the revolutionary
architecture and providing a set of
interfaces to the currently existing
Internet. The result would be that we
have both the revolutionary (the Hypernet
architecture) and evolutionary (the
overall migration strategy) parts that
taken together would satisfy (some subset
of) the requirements including the "no
flag day" one.
-- dima.> -----Original Message----- > From: avri [mailto:avri@sm.luth.se] > Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 4:33 AM > To: rrg > Subject: Evolution and the routing architecture > > > 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 Doria > > Institute 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