Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com> wrote:
AD> What on-going maintenance costs haven't been
AD> acknowledged?
effect on various kinds of mobility.
Have you been reading the responses on the various lists?
AD> But we need to make *informed* decisions. So far, I haven't seen
AD> much in the way of information which addresses the above questions.
strange, since the details have been offered many times.
Uh, no. Assertions have been offered, and countered. The same
assertions have then been repeated. Little in the way of detailed
information has been supplied.
You are asserting that I am making statements outside of scope, and I
have no idea what you are talking about. Referring to a massive
archive with no specific citation is not very helpful at providing a
basis for your assertion.
<shrug> I recall the flame wars, and their content. If you don't,
I think that demonstrates part of the problem.
AD> Exactly. SMTP also has localized deployment.
No it is not. SMTP is used -- without prior arrangement -- between
arbitrary, independent administrations around the global Internet. It
is difficult to think of a usage scenario that is LESS local.
I say "deployment" you say "usage". Can you see we're not talking
about the same thing? Interaction between domains may be done via
SMTP, but each domain has localized deployment of services supporting
SMTP. The fact that those services interact across domains is the
whole point of protocols... every protocol does it.
The intermediaries form an infrastructure. When there is relaying, it
is by infrastructure services.
And how is relaying outside of the scope of what I said about
SMTP/DNS clients and servers, etc.? It's not. So it looks to me like
the word "infrastructure" is a magic buzz-word. It's use is to ensure
that proposals which address entities in the network don't (by
definition) address the "infrastructure", and therefore those
proposals are incomplete, and should be scrapped.
I hate playing "catch-up". It's annoying.
Having that are legitimate to use, but must first be registered with
some other, independent administration (the controller or the
originator's domain) creates a central administration style of
control, although yes, it makes for lots of central administrations.)
For one, that sentence makes little to no sense to me.
Secondly, it looks like you're conflating the administration of two
independent domains. See previous discussions on ASRG.
I've responded with rather more than that. In particular, the
administrative effort to handle various mobility scenarios can get
very high.
Exactly. "can get very high". That gives me *zero* information
about what the costs are, and where they come from. It also
illustrates my point perfectly: it looks like you're unable or
unwilling to provide data to back up your assertions.
Previous responses have explained which mobility scenarios are
affected, and what costs are incurred by each party involved, in order
to be mobile within an RMX-aware network. Rather than show those
costs to be incorrect/incomplete, you just re-state your position that
"costs can get very high."
I'm at a loss for how to continue this discussion without going
around in endless circles.
Alan DeKok.