Re: WG next steps

["J. Noel Chiappa" <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>]

    > From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>

    >> Do we think it is worthwhile to continue down the network/routing
    >> based solutions? The lack of feedback on my draft suggests people
    >> aren't very interested in working on this.

Oh, Iljitsch, I thought you got lots of feedback - but it was all of the form
"geographic addressing is a waste of time"! :-)

    >> If we want to do this at the routing level, we have start exploring
    >> less obvious stuff. For instance, using the flow label or diffserv
    >> code points to swim across the default zone towards a network that
    >> knows more specific routing information.

Just to prevent confusion, I wouldn't call that a "routing" solution (which,
to me, means having the routing mechanisms keep track of multi-homed sites).

I think it's better to call it an internetwork-layer solution, one which
uses a secondary "locator" in the packet header.


    > In the long run that will be the only thing that scales

It's not clear exactly what you're referring to when you say "that ...
scales", but I can see two possible axes for scaling. One is in the size of
a particular site which is multi-homed. The other is in the total number of
multi-homed sites in the network as a whole.

It's quite clear to most people that a routing-based solution (as defined
above) to the "total number" axis is definitely one that will *not* scale.

Can you expand on your comment a little, using this more precise
terminology? Did you mean "an internetwork-layer solution to the total
number scaling"?

	Noel