[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
| For some goals, (e.g. multi-homing Google) it might indeed
| make sense to have
| the routing do it. For others (e.g. multi-homing a single
| machine) it's clear
| that the routing can't do it. Whether "one size will fit
| all", I really don't
| know. We might wind up with a couple of different
| mechanisms, each tuned to a
| separate part of the problem space.
| So, perhaps my comment about "overstating my enthusiasm for
| separation *as a
| solution to multi-homing issues*" now has a little more depth to it.
| Separation would indeed be a useful building block in some
| of the solutions, I
| think, but that's all it is - a useful building block in
| some solutions.
I respect your position and I'm sure that Ran didn't mean to
paint you into a corner that you wouldn't want to defend.
I agree completely that separation of the locator is a good thing.
In fact, I believe that we agreed to this long ago in San Diego. ;-)
and I agree with your analysis that there may be many different
mechanisms that we end up with the locator. It occurs to me that
there are different mechanisms that we would want given differences
in (a) the rate at which locators change, (b) the policy associated
with the distribution of locators, and (c) the overhead to the
organization. I have no problem with this.
But I will go farther than you on one point: I believe that separating
the locator is _absolutely necessary_ to a scalable, workable solution.
I have no mathematical proof of this, but the combination of the
constraints involved and the aesthetics make it compelling to me.
- Re: GSE
- From: RJ Atkinson <email@example.com>