On Tuesday 7 July 2009 at 14:28:32 Lixia Zhang sent: > > On Jul 4, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Toni Stoev wrote: > > > Dear fellow (re)searchers, > > > > Some of the opinions expressed on the list, with positions that I > > share, include the concept of protocol layering. > > There is an alternative to that concept. It is the role-based > > architecture (RBA). It gives much freedom with consistency. > > I would like to communicate here, knowing that at least some of you > > know what role-based architecture is. > > Please, anyone interested, find the documentation of RBA and read it. > > Or maybe you already know RBA. > > Either case, please, let me know. > > Hi Toni, > > Thanks for the msg, RBA can indeed be an interesting topic. > On the other hand, my understanding of the goal of this RG at this > time is to address routing scalability issue without requiring the > whole Internet moving to an entirely different architecture. > > Lixia >
Hi Lixia, Surely this research group is not chartered to change the packet header processing model of the Internet. But folks are using here protocol layering concepts as routing solution arguments. Meanwhile there modestly exists a role-based approach. Are we stuck with the layering approach, or are we free to choose roling. Let us free ourselves of this unclarity and face the real routing choices. Besides routing, there is actually the need for a significantly different architecture. The RBA is a fundament for such a change. A few more (r)evolution aspiring concepts are needed for the change. So, Lixia, thanks for knowing RBA. Toni _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
