--On Wednesday, 04 July, 2007 11:50 +0100 michael.dillon@xxxxxx
wrote:
>> So, what lesson(s) ought the IETF to take away from the fact
>> that people aren't?
>
> That MPLS with 6PE is a superior migration scenario.
> Or perhaps, that defining migration scenarios without the full
> involvement of network operations people is an exercise in
> futility.
>...
Michael,
If the lesson we have learned is that the only practical way to
handle and route IP (whether v4, v6, or otherwise) requires the
use of an underlying virtual circuit layer, then much of what we
are doing in the IETF involves an architectural delusion about
the fundamental datagram and packet model of the Internet. Some
applications work is insensitive to that delusion, others are
not, but, if the circuit underlayer is really necessary, then
much of TCP/IP represents unneeded complexity and we should be
working to dispense with it.
Despite the views of some "network operations people" (many, but
perhaps not all of them with their feet stuck in legacy telco
thinking), many of us still believe that datagram networks have
significant value for more than multiplexing circuits. To us --
including people who have been involved in network operations --
it may make sense to optimize parts of networks with a single
policy environment by the use of underlying circuit
technologies. But, like classic CSMA/CD Ethernet, they are
technologies that may be entirely appropriate in a restricted
network environment but not for a global Internet, even if the
global Internet interconnects several networks using such
technology.
Maybe we are all deluded and that, as has occasionally been
claimed by some telco-based bodies, datagram networks are only
useful for research and the future, as well as the past, of
"real" networks lies in end-to-end circuits. But I'm not
convinced yet.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf