> On 18 Dec 2021, at 04:19, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> As a network layer person I personally find this a pretty sad situation, and >> I would like it to be otherwise. But the capital markets don't listen to me. >> They are busy talking up the content and cloud folk who are busy pushing out >> replicated content ever closer to the consumer, and they neither care nor >> value anything else. > > I feel the same way and have for almost 2 decades. That is the reason I focus > new designs and use-cases using overlays because it is easier to control the > application edge and just assume the underlay can never and will never change > for the new use-cases. >
This is certainly true. However, one of the points we are trying to make in the gap analysis document is that in a lot of use-cases (with or without overlays) extensions have been designed to overcome some limitations of the underlay. The document focuses only on addressing but the same can be said for other parts/aspects of the Internet architecture. Anyway, these extensions are there to fill gaps, which in turn means that some form of evolution is desirable. Hence the drafts and these threads, to well formulate the problem and what is desirable, so that at some point we can start to tackle the problem. Ciao L. > Dino > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
