Keith,
On Oct 7, 2010, at 4:32 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
As currently defined, IP assumes a global address space that is used
consistently throughout the network,
I actually think it's a bit worse than that. As currently defined, IP assumes
a global address space in which each individual address has the potential for
being topologically significant. Topological aggregation to permit scaling was
an afterthought that doesn't fit particularly well into that architecture.
Who is to say whose prejudices are right?
If it doesn't work (for some value of the variable 'work'), it's fairly clear
it's wrong.
What is desperately needed in the Internet today is an architecture.
...
We don't have an architecture today. What we have today are the remnants of
an architecture that is 30+ years old, and a lot of competing religions.
I wonder if the folks in the telephony world would say the same thing (modulo
100+ instead of 30+). Given people's reliance on the Internet, the idea that
we can throw out the existing (non-)architecture and replace it wholesale with
something new is mere fantasy. Even back with IPng was being chosen, the
assumption that this would be possible was probably a core mistake.
Regards,
-drc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf