Subject: Re: Open Routing Area meeting in Vienna

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:44:24 -0700

Eric,

> Jeff> TCP is a general purpose transport, and both BGP and
> Jeff> HTTP use it.  When someone suggests augmenting TCP to
> Jeff> add, say, transactions, doesn't the IETF suggest that
> Jeff> they get a new protocol?
> 
> But  this  is  an issue  of  whether  TCP  provides functionality  which  is
> appropriate for transactions.  I don't think anyone would say "you can't use
> TCP because we already have too much TCP going on". 
> 
> Jeff> unless  you  want  to  argue  that  BGP  is  just  a  general  purpose
> Jeff> distribution mechanism. 
> 
> It is possible  to think of BGP as a  general purpose distribution mechanism
> with applications layered  on top of it, where the  "address family" is used
> to multiplex the  applications.  The multi-protocol extensions to  BGP are a
> pretty clear attempt to move in this direction. 
> 
> Jeff> The idea of splitting different  functions into different tasks on the
> Jeff> same processor is that new or alarming. 
> 
> No question.   The issue is whether  using a different protocol  is either a
> necessary or  a sufficient condition of "splitting  different functions into
> different tasks". 

There is an existence proof (aka working code) that using a different 
protocol is *not* a necessary condition of "splitting different functions 
into different tasks". 

Yakov.

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:44:24 -0700

Eric,

Yakov.