Masataka Ohta wrote on 31/08/2019 12:14:
Your proposal is almost a text-book case of RFC1925, section 6:
FYI, the rfc was published on 1 April.
I'm aware of the date that rfc1925 was published and the significance of
the date, and also that rfc1925 was intended to take a humorous approach
towards some very fundamental, recurrent themes which continue to
present themselves in networking theory and practice.
No-one is compelled to pay attention to anything rfc1925 for this
reason, but anyone dismissing it will do so to their own disadvantage.
I.e. instead of having network level complexity, you're proposing to
shift the problem to maintaining both state and network into the host
level. No doubt it has some benefits, but this comes at the cost of
bringing dfz complexity down to the host and all the consequent
support, scaling and management headaches associated with that. I.e.
the problem space shifts, but is not solved.
So, you are joking, aren't you?
We need agree to disagree then. I wish you well.
Nick
