[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[RRG] Consensus? 4 points so we can make progress
- To: Routing Research Group <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [RRG] Consensus? 4 points so we can make progress
- From: Robin Whittle <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:54:23 +1000
- Organization: First Principles
- User-agent: Thunderbird 220.127.116.11 (Windows/20080421)
This will no-doubt displease some folks, but here is a set of points
which I think we need to agree upon soon in order to make sufficient
progress to achieve a useful recommendation in March 2009.
Without such agreement, or something similar, I think we would waste
time arguing about:
a - A solution which involves significant host changes - and
therefore which could never be implemented in a reasonable
b - Router based translation schemes which can't be practical for
c - The prospects for near-term (next 5 years or so) widespread
adoption of IPv6 - because we haven't formed a clear
consensus that we need to solve the IPv4 routing scaling
problem directly, but think it could or should be solved by
mass migration from IPv4 to IPv6.
Here is the rough list of points, all of which have been discussed
in greater detail in recent days:
1 - The scope of the RRG's work should focus on IP addresses and
network based solutions - involving new router functions
and/or new network elements. The solution should not involve
any changes to host stacks or applications, except perhaps
to optimise performance which is degraded by the main solution.
Discussion of longer-term architectural solutions involving
changing or underpinning existing host-level protocols -
necessarily involving changes to host stacks and/or
applications - should be directed to another forum.
2 - The solution must work for IPv4 and IPv6 and show promise
for being adopted by the majority of end-user networks
in the 3 years following deployment, such as in the 2012 to
2015 time-frame. While this adoption will be supported and
encouraged by administrative and perhaps business arrangements,
the primary reason for adoption will be the immediate benefits
to the ISPs and end-user networks.
(We don't have a good definition of "end-user networks", but I
suggest it should include all sizes - existing and new - including
single-host networks: from the largest universities and corporations
down to individuals on DSL lines and with cell-phones.)
3 - The solution must provide portable address space for
end-user networks without impacting the scaling of the
current BGP routing system. (The map-encap schemes do this.)
4 - As already agreed, the solution needs to support multihoming
and traffic engineering in a scalable fashion.
- Robin http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg