Re: Host-based may be the way to go, but network controls areneccessary

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:

>     > CIDR was a very good thing to do as we are essentially now solving
>     > this problem 10 years later so it bought us 10 years.

> Huh? CIDR was principally supposed to stop routing-table explosion caused by
> uni-homed sites, which it did quite well. It was never intended as a
> solution to multi-homing, for the simple reason that it's no use there.

Routing table explosion is routing table explosion... But you are right
these aren't really the same as they are caused by different needs.

>     > However, it does chip away at the underlying IP architecture.

> Sorry? I didn't follow that, at all. Can you explain the reasoning?

Build a network using an assumption. Break the assumption. Repeat.

It used to be that if something was in the routing table, it was
reachable. Today, if there is an aggregate in the routing table, the
aggregated (sub)networks had better be reachable. If we do
locator/identifer seperation, being reachable is still a good idea but
if a set of locators isn't: too bad. We don't flood this information
throughout the network and we also don't have to repair it using
backdoor routes or tunnels. So routing becomes much less dynamic.

Signing off now, the IETF55 wlan can't be around for much longer...

Iljitsch