RE: draft-kurtis-multihoming-longprefix comments

["Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>]

|   The 
|   forced address
|   change approach simplifies routing by moving the complexity to the
|   endpoints.


You say that like it's a bad thing.  Please remember that in the world
where every home has a different provider all using their unchangeable
addresses, we end up with host routing.  And we're NOT going there.

Ya know, geographic addressing works because three space forces you
into geographic connectivity.  If there was a rift in three space as 
often as there is in cyberville, we wouldn't be doing geographic addressing
there either.  You just couldn't get there from here.


|   Which is easier, 
|   building a
|   routing system that scales to several billion entries, or 
|   silicon that
|   is good at counting? 


Anything that scales to several billion anythings is currently not
in the reach of silicon.  They are the same: both intractable.


|   I understand how they did it (my desk phone has a Bellevue 
|   & San Jose
|   number), the point was that is the type of service Joe 
|   Sixpack expects,
|   yet it doesn't scale in the routing system.


If you understand that it doesn't scale, then why are you advocating
it?


|   > To do the equivalent in the Internet, we'd have to allow 
|   > people to emit packets with a "virtual" address in them 
|   > (let's call them Effective Internet Demultiplexors, or EID's, 
|   > for short), and then some router would have to do the mapping 
|   > and stick on the actual address.
|   > 
|   > I have in the distant past proposed doing exactly that, but 
|   > people didn't like the idea.
|   
|   In an abstract sense, 8+8 (maybe 16+16) does the same thing.


Yes, they both do.  People still don't like 'em cause they're 
"not the IP way."


|   I am not picking on anyone, just trying to point out that 
|   the average
|   network manager doesn't really have a clue how complex this is, and
|   wouldn't laugh at the concept of addresses that are 
|   consistent across
|   provider changes.


We are first trying to achieve consensus amongst those who should
know a sensible architecture.  If we can say "here's how it will be"
then selling Joe sixpack on it is much easier.  If we continue
having to have this same discussion with you for another decade,
we will not move one iota from where we are today.


|   The point is we did not solve the problem, we just moved it. 


We have no choice but to move it.  Multihoming cannot be solved
soley by routing without architectural change in a scalable manner.


|   If the address were independent of 
|   delivery and
|   the remote routing mechanism only dealt with cities, Joe's 
|   would have to
|   bring it to Seattle to figure out what to do with it.


And that would be a fine abstraction if that had anything to
do with reality.  Unfortunately, geographic addressing has
about as much to do with topological connectivity as common
last names have to do with street addresses.

Tony