At 01:27 PM 4/12/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> I'm being a bit extreme but the point is that just because something is
> architecturally bad doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, since these
days it
> takes us years to make any architectural enhancements.
perhaps architectural impurity alone shouldn't keep you from doing
something, but the fact that something violates fundamental design
assumptions should cause you to do some analysis and hard thinking
about the likely consequences of using them.
Yes. So why don't we have a new design which decouples all the meanings
for an IP "address"?
and if you are in the
business of selling boxes that violate the design assumptions you
shouldn't misrepresent these to your customers.
Sounds like we have some agreement on the list.
most of these hacks can be employed in ways that are mostly harmless,
but knowing when they are harmless and when they will cause harm
can be quite difficult.
There is precedent for the IESG getting draft authors to include caveats
and limitations.
NATs seemed mostly harmless when they were
first deployed; now they're a huge problem.
Just wait until mobile IP-based "phones" take off!
...Scott
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com