On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Tony Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > |BTW, my counter proof to Tony's claim only addressed single-homed > |cases where PI is a necessary consequence of the requirements. Nearly > |all multi-vendor multi-homed cases require PI to function to an > |appropriate standard as well. > > Can we safely assume that this is due to session resilience on link failure?
Hi Tony, Barring the single-homed scenarios that are also relevant to the multi-vendor multi-homed case, I think we can make that assumption. At least nothing else jumps out at me. We can also eliminate the single-vendor multi-homed non-server case since the addresses there can be carved from the vendor's PA allocation. > |We're well past the point where "PI for servers" should be considered > |an architectural requirement until proven otherwise. > > Again, isn't PI a point solution? I'm not sure what you mean by point solution. If one solution is known for a problem and despite years of attempts no other solutions are found, should not that one solution gain functional equivalence to an axiom? It's hard to make meaningful progress if the group has to keep stopping to re-prove that yes, there really is only one known solution here and no, that alternate approach didn't pan out, and no that clever idea won't work either, and yes it really sucks that we're stuck with this but we are. > While PA today is not currently acceptable, your claim, > if true, negates just about every solution presented here. Just so I'm not the one saying so. ;) You'll notice that one of the solutions it doesn't negate is TRRP. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
