Re: [RRG] Thoughts on the RRG/Routing Space Problem

[Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>]

Excerpts from Stephen Sprunk at 03:08:24 -0600 on Sun 2 Dec 2007:
> Thus spake "Scott Brim" <swb@employees.org>
> > Excerpts from Stephen Sprunk on Fri, Nov 30, 2007 01:00:57PM
> > -0600:
> >> I suppose that's a "split"; I thought Russ was worried that there
> >> would be two (potentially overlapping) address spaces, one for
> >> providers and one for customers, as opposed to a single address
> >> space which was divided into RLOCs and EIDs.  For instance,
> >> there's been mention of using IPv6 for EIDs and IPv4 for RLOCs,
> >> which has some interesting properties.
> >
> > I am concerned about totally decoupling the addressing domains,
> > and allowing reuse of addresses, for two reasons.  First,
> > operations: I think it would be confusing to operators to always
> > have to provide context when talking about "240.1.2.3".  Second,
> > it might be useful to allow end nodes to send packets directly to
> > globally routed addresses in the DFZ domain.  On both of these, we
> > don't know yet if it's going to be a problem, so let's put off
> > reusing addresses for a while.
> 
> I don't understand how a solution could be incrementally deployable
> unless both the EID space and the RLOC space were distinct parts of
> our existing address space.  They can't overlap as long as there's a
> single legacy site left, which means forever in practice.

I think that sounds right.

--
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