Re: An idea: GxSE

["Jon (Taz) Mischo" <taz@tazlore.com>]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Sean Doran wrote:

> Thus, while we're waiting on the reqs, I think it'd be particularly
> nice if proposals (however informal) somehow could be "fitted-into" --
> or at least take into consideration -- TCP, UDP, and so forth,
> and ideally make implementing/managing IGPs (in the sites themselves
> or in their respective inverse trees of providers) very much more
> difficult than today (in v4 or v6).    Shim approaches (like SCTP)

I KNOW you meant the opposite here, Sean :)  You want IGPs to be easier,
not difficult, RIGHT? :)

> are not the only -- or even necessarily the best (though maybe they are) --
> way of taking these possible-requirements into consideration.

SCTP isn't a shim, but some people want to use it that way.  It's really
good for some connections, but I'm tired of hearing people advocate it in
bad situations :P  However, reinventing the wheel is bad sometimes, too.

Part of the idea GxSE induced in my cluttered head was the notion that
this doesn't have to be at the border routers only.

Border routers are often very heavily loaded.  Announcing valid GR/SK
pairings via BGP or the like and then propagating them into an IGP
(OSPF/IS-IS) would allow you to make translations further into the
network, without renumbering.  Basically, you could make the network
renumber itself.  If this is done properly, you could keep the
intelligence at the edge, completely avoid renumbering, AND get better
routing/multihoming performance overall.  This COULD be a win-win
situation, I just think we have to look at it from all angles and proceed
very carefully.

Not quite so wishy-washily yours,
-Taz

-- 
        "Be liberal in what you accept,
      and conservative in what you send."
--Jon Postel (1943-1998) RFC 1122, October 1989