shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk
Wed Mar 1 15:46:56 UTC 2006
> There is
> talk at present of whether the protocol needs to be able to
> accommodate a site-policy middlebox function to enforce site policy
Certainly, firewalls may be the only point such policy will work
when the hosts are hidden behind them on a corporate lan
10 years of host legacy later I don't see managing this being fun.
easier to upgrade a few routers that have to stay current anyway
> The scope of
> that policy mediation function depends strongly on people like you
> saying "at a high level, this is the kind of decision I am not happy
> with the hosts making".
For our web hosting farms I'd rather our hosts host and not route,
there's too many of them and they are busy enough we don't want to have
to buy more to do the job a C or J box of asics should do better, not
accounting for the admin of managing it over 1000s of hosts instead of
a few routers.
Routing is also the responsiblity of a different team from hosting
More information about the NANOG