Subject: RE: [seamoby] Update to the requirements draft

From: "Gary Kenward" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 16:46:47 -0500

So how do we determine what an acceptable cost is?
Why is linear scaling the objective? Many systems scale
on the order of N^2, and yet are still acceptable in limited 
scenarios they are used. In many cases, the scope of the solution
is limited in order to ensure that the polynomial growth remains
manageable. Route discovery/propagation is a good example.

You provide the example of MIPv6: well, MIP was never designed to
be non-scaleable, just the opposite. There were many ideas that
were tossed because they were not considered scalable. The issue
with MIP scaleability is really a more general issue that has to
do with maintaining SA's over a large mobile population, which,
as the MIP wg discussion should examplify, is a tough problem to
solve. Which just shows that scaleability is a principle, that
has to be evaluated with every new embelishement to the solution,
and there are no fixed criteria.

As I said before, if there's an agreement to require that CT be 
scaleable, fine, then let's add the requirement that "CT MUST be
scaleable" and leave it at that. We could spend a long time trying 
to find a suitable definition of scaleability, and I personally
don't think it will stand the test of time. Mostly because we have
no idea what suitable means. 

Gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shahrier, Sharif M. [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: November 19, 2001 16:27
> To: 'James Kempf'; Shahrier, Sharif M.; 'Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1';
> Kenward, Gary [WDLN2:AN10:EXCH]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [seamoby] Update to the requirements draft
> 
> 
> 
> I would support this. In addition, I would like to add:
> 
> I think we should put it in subject to the comments. I don't think it
> should say anything about numbers.
> How about:
> 
>         The CT protocol SHOULD be scalable at an acceptable 
> cost. The CT
> protocol SHOULD scale at most linearly
>         with the number of participating network nodes.
> The CT protocol SHOULD scale at most linearly with the number 
> of contexts
> and context features being transferred.
> 
> -Sharif.
> 
> 
>

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:13:52 -0800

Gary,

Alright, how about:

    The CT solution MUST be scalable.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Kenward" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Shahrier, Sharif M.'" <[email-masked]>; "'James
Kempf'" <[email-masked]>; "'Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1'"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 1:46 PM
Subject: RE: [seamoby] Update to the requirements draft