On Jul 7, 2009, at 8:06 PM, Toni Stoev wrote:
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.
IAB set up a mailing list a few years back specifically for
architecture-related discussion:
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
FYI,
Lixia
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
