[rrg] Fundamental objections to a host-based scalable routingsolution

[Fleischman, Eric]

>| Brian Carpenter Wrote:
>|True, but while we're being pragmatic, it seems clear to me that the 
>|RRG will never reach consensus on a host based solution in any case.

>Tony Li wrote:
>Interesting.  Again, not everyone seems to agree with you.  There's
clearly a 
>case (that you yourself have invoked) that it is possible to upgrade
hosts.  
>Thus, it seems like this is not wholly out of the question.

I wasn't able to make the IETF so I don't have any insight as to whether
RRG community is converging or diverging. Regardless, it doesn't
surprise me that not everybody agrees with any given point -- RRG is too
large a community for that. However, I resonate with Brian's initial
observation because if we restrict RRG to routing only, then we also
restrict the diversity of solutions under consideration and are
therefore converging on a common solution. 

On the one hand, this is self-serving on my part because the solutions
that I resonate with are routing only. Some may argue that such a
limitation would eliminate the best alternatives. I have two
counter-arguments to that claim:
1) I don't discern any strong consensus building upon approaches
involving host modification so if they are a better approach, the
majority has yet to become aware of their superiority.
2) If modifying hosts are out-of-bounds for RRG, then perhaps
middleboxes can also be deemed out-of-scope as well? If this is the
case, then we are just that much closer to convergence.

My personal belief is that I'd like us to converge soon on a
routing-only solution. I think that it is time to begin to wrap the
theoretical discussions up and proceed to modeling and simulation and
limited deployment experimentation.

Failing that, I would like to better understand why the RRG community
hasn't yet converged on the desirability of map-and-encaps as a
desirable RRG vector.