Re: [RRG] Mobility considerations in proposal evaluation

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-02-29 03:29, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
> <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
>>  > For better or for worse, IPv4 bounds the box we're stuck with.
>>
>>  The endgame for IPv4 is about to start. No point wasting time on IPv4-
>>  specific solutions.
> 
> Iljitsch,
> 
> That's a remarkably persistent rumor but I asked my ISP and they set
> me straight: for all the chatter there are more sightings of sasquatch
> and the abominable snowman than there are of IPv6.
> 
> While I say that half-facetiously, it's really only half. IPv4 will be
> with us for the foreseeable future. 

That's not in dispute. The "end game" is that there won't be any new v4
address blocks to play with three years from now, which makes the notion
of a backwards-compatible loc-id split within the v4 address space
"courageous" to say the least...

> Focusing our efforts on IPv6 would
> amount to counting our chickens before the hen finishes laying the
> eggs.

...whereas IPv6 gives us ample opportunity to use existing rgeistries
to support a namespace split, and to deploy a hybrid solution that
uses IPv6 address space to support the IPv4 legacy indefinitely.

    Brian

> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
>>
>>  > Is there anything else? Do you have an inkling what it might look
>>  > like? I'd hate for history to look back and say we suffered a failure
>>  > of imagination but it's also possible that there isn't a fourth avenue
>>  > to explore that's achievable from where we are today.
>>
>>  Maybe this would be a good point to start up the biannual geographic
>>  routing discussion again.
>>
>>
>>  > Alternatives? Information theory has some useful things to say about
>>  > information flow but the last I heard there are really only five ways
>>  > to get information:
>>
>>  > 1. You're told (unsolicited).
>>  > 2. You seek and find out (solicited).
>>
>>  What about: the holder of the information tells a third party, the
>>  party needing the information asks the third party = a rendezvous point.
>>
>>  Note that you can't see and find out routing information from the
>>  source, because you need to know how to talk to the source to do that,
>>  and the routing information is exactly what lets you do that.
>>
>>  Of course this can be solved with an overlay network a la ALT but I
>>  see a number of downsides there.
>>
>>
>>  > Perhaps the Angelic Routing Protocol where at each router the packet
>>  > briefly stops and prays for guidance. Loss only occurs when packets of
>>  > insufficient faith are tempted down the wrong path.
>>
>>  :-)
>>
>>  > Verily I tell
>>  > thee, all DFZ scalability problems can be solved with with ARP.
>>
>>  Sure, right after we solve the inter-domain broadcast scalability
>>  problem.
>>
> 
> 
> 

--
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