On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Tony Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Noel likes to say that the measure of an architecture is its > ability to adapt to new requirements that are not yet forseen. What new > requirements will arise in the base architecture where the fundamental lack > of host participation will cripple us?
History suggests that's not a question we can answer until faced with the unexpected requirements. Our crystal balls aren't that good. History does, however, suggest that the more control you place directly in the hands of the end-user's single PC, the greater adaptability the system exhibits. This holds true whether the end user exercises that control by writing code himself or merely selecting which software he runs. While this implies a host-based solution, it is not necessarily a death knell for map-encap. Systems which follow strategy A1c/2c/3b should be able to place the mapping brain (and hence the control) as close to the host as desired for any given host. In TRRP for example, individual hosts can, if desired, control their maps directly. That dictates the behavior of remote ITRs trying to reach them. TRRP also allows an individual host to upgrade its stack in order to become an ITR, even if it has a mapped address, gaining considerably more control over its network presence than it has now. It even allows hosts to use base non-mapped addresses so that hosts willing to accept renumbering can continue to perform as they do in today's architecture. My point is not to trumpet TRRP, but rather to point out that it's possible to design a map-encap system in which the host is not required to give up the ability to act as a first class element in the architecture. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
