Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

["Robert J. Rockell" <rrockell@sprint.net>]

Please allow me to possibly mis-use other portions of this draft.  If you
(all) will allow me to counterpoint based on the same draft:

[...]
       1. The computational power and memory sizes required to execute
           the routing protocol software and to contain the tables must
           be less than the growth in hardware capabilities described
           by Moore's Law, which has hardware capabilities doubling
           every 18 months or so.  Other observations indicate that
           memory sizes double every 2 years or so.


3. The speeds of high-speed RAMS (SRAMs, used for caches and
           the like) are growing, though slowly.  Because of their use
           in caches and other very specific applications, these RAMs
           tend to be small, a few megabits, and the size of these RAMs
           is not increasing very rapidly.

           On the other hand, the speed of "large" memories (DRAMs) is
           increasing even slower than that for the high speed RAMS.
           This is because the development of these RAMs is driven by
           the PC market, where size is very important, and low speed
           can be made up for by better caches.


Not necessarily affecting "geo for now", but not proven either way.
Definitely a hint against CIDR-izing IPv6.


3.5:
[...]
        Some have proposed that a geographic addressing scheme be used,
        requiring exchange points to be situated within each geographic
        'region'.  There are many reasons why we believe this to be a
        bad approach, but those arguments are irrelevant.  The main
        issue is that the routing architecture should not presume a
        specific network structure.


I didn't write it. Send flames to IRTF :)


Another useful quote that is not necessarily germane to this thread, but
indeed a consideration is:

   3.17    Simplicity


        The architecture MUST be simple enough so that Radia Perlman
        can explain all the important concepts in less than an hour.

        The requirement is that the routing architecture be kept as
        simple as possible.  This requires careful evaluation of
        possible features and functions with a merciless weeding out of
        those that "might be nice".


Possibly germane to some proposals:

    3.20     Stand-alone


        The routing architecture and protocols MUST NOT rely on other
        components of the Internet (such as DNS) for their correct
        operation.  Routing is the fundamental process by which data [...]

so 8+8 is probably out too...

So we are back to square one, based on this document...  ?


Thanks
Rob Rockell
SprintLink
(+1) 703-689-6322
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

->On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Masataka Ohta wrote:
->
->> That's one of the reason why reduction of DFZ is important for
->> the high speed Internet with quick routing table look up.
->
->The IRTF doesn't agree:
->
->http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-routing-reqs-groupa-00.txt
->
->4.1 Forwarding Table Optimization
->
->        We believe that it is not necessary for the architecture to
->        minimize the size of the forwarding tables (FIBS).  Current
->        memory sizes, speeds, and prices, along with processor and ASIC
->        capabilities allow forwarding tables to be very large, O(E6),
->        and fast (100M lookups/second) tables to be built with little
->        difficulty.
->
->