Hello Robin,
I have been writing to this mailinglist because it addresses the most
interesting and most important topic.( In the past I cared about MPLS and stuff
like that. MPLS seemed to be a synonym for TE. Today I am more convinced of
pure IP forwarding and respective TE. But this is still below the urgency of
what is addressed by the IAB raw report.)
I always preferred the RRG-mailinglist as opposed to the RAM-mailinglist
because I think, that LISP etc. are closer to accomplishment and should
therefore be dealt with inside RAM. Neither am I in the position to stop LISP
nor is it my intention. Just the opposite: With the rejected NIRA project and no
further proposal submission opportunity for the next years on this area, I
should be glad if all are concentrated on the loc/ID split protocols in the
meantime.
Constructive criticism: I cannot provide such, e.g. for CONS, if I am
convinced that all of it is not needed at all.
Anectodal accounts: I do not precisely know what you mean, but for one
point: Rekthers law. Such hilighted!
But completely ignored. No controversal discussion about it! Not what
it might mean, not how is it understood by all.
I did provide a lengthy description of my NIRA concept a week ago. It was
much better than what we submitted to the EU. I know for sure that it will
work, but I have to presume that the geographical coordinates of the packet
destination can be provided by DNS as an additional information, and that this
information can be written as an optional parameter into the IP header. But if I
see how often AOL-software or Windows-software upgrades are urged to be
installed, I hope that this can be done, too.
Heiner
In einer eMail vom 21.11.2007 16:09:44 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
rw@firstpr.com.au:
Hello
Heiner,
In the last three or so months you have written 26 messages to
this
list. I think none of them have contained constructive criticism
of
other peoples' proposals. In general you have asserted that
there
is a new way of solving the routing scaling problem. So far,
I
think you have only supplied poorly organised anecdotal accounts
of
some aspects of what you are thinking about.
I believe that in
order to contribute to the work of the Routing
Research Group you need to
do one or both of:
1 - Constructively criticise other proposals - which
means you
provide detailed critiques, hopefully with
suggestions on
how the identified problems might be
resolved.
2 - Provide a reasonably detailed proposal, in a coherent
fashion.
Some folks almost insist every proposal be an
Internet Draft,
but I don't. For instance I think
Brian's Carpenter's recent
proposal (in a PDF) and Bill
Herrin's TRRP site are perfectly
good ways to develop
ideas. The proposal needs to be written
in clear enough
detail that people can readily understand the
inner workings
and the major challenges to developing and
deploying the new
architecture. I think it is good to list the
goals of
the proposal, and the "non-goals" - things you are
not trying
to achieve, but which other proposals in this field
might be
tackling.
I don't think it is good enough to describe only the
intermediate
mechanisms and outcomes of your proposed new routing
architecture -
which is what I think your messages to date may amount
to. I think
you also need to explain in clear, concrete, practical,
terms how
individual routers or other network elements must behave in order
to
create these mechanisms and outcomes.
I do not think it is
necessary for every proposal to apparently
solve every conceivable
problem. Such a requirement would stifle
the brainstorming process of
tossing new ideas around.
Please provide a unified description of your
proposal, with
concrete, low-level, network element behaviour descriptions
- and
identify those aspects of your proposal you haven't yet worked
out,
with the reasons why you think they may be practical.
-
Robin
--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com
with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text
body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> &
ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg