Sam Thomas <sthomas@lart.net> wrote:

I am not foolish enough to argue with a million lemmings. One need only convince the one in front to change direction.

You'll be amazed at the incompetence of lemmings in front :(

That a more scalable solution has not yet been developed is not evidence that one does not exist.

Of course, not. But this is someting in research domain - if and when a magic solution is found, then it'll make sense to discuss it. Doing engineering in hope of some future magic is, well, unwise. And there _are_ problems which cannot be solved.

Classful routing and address assignement wasn't scalable, either, but we have (hopefully) come out of that era with some cleverness and reliance on good design.

...and on '67 vintage theoretical work by Kleinrock and Klein who showed that routing can be done in scalable manner. Aggregation is nothing new.

...

Nah. It is a clear and present case of not thinking hard enough. Indeed, and you're willing to dismiss multicast without second thought?

No, i'm willing to dismiss it after years of playing with it and thinking about ways to fix it.

As time passes, I can assure you that the line between the two will blur, whether because of multicast, caching, or greed is yet to be seen.

Greed wins.

* I am a multicast newbie, and largely illiterate in current implementation, so don't laugh at my suggestions publicly, please. :-)

Uncommon honesty :) --vadim