[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RRG] new draft on " A Taxonomy for New Routing and Addressing Architecture Designs"

Hi Robin,
thank you very much for your quick review and comments (I sort of knew that we could count on you to provide prompt feedback!) Since I have a few other fires to fight tonight, let me try to address your overall comments below first, and get back to you on the more specific comments at a later time. 

On Mar 31, 2008, at 4:58 PM, Robin Whittle wrote:

Hi Scott and Lixia,

Here are some thoughts on your new ID.

Overall, I am not confident that such a high-level conceptual
framework as you are trying to make is really going to help us
design better proposals, or forward the debate about the merits of
the current proposals.
well, this is one view; there are other views. But we don't really need to debate this here. 
- I myself have come to see a clearer picture from this writing exercise
  (and I believe it's probably true for Scott too)
- we can just wait and see whether the draft is or is not useful.


We already know so much about the strengths and problems of at least
some proposals - for instance I have critiqued LISP, APT and TRRP,
and many others have critiqued LISP extensively.  So I think our
time is better spent debating these problems and seeking solutions.
No-one has evaluated or critiqued Ivip in the way I tried to do for
the other proposals.  I think that would be a good use of people's
time and energy.  More on this at the end of this message.


I'd mostly agree with the above, though not entirely ;-)
To me the most important thing is "understanding" the various proposals.
That is the goal of this taxonomy draft (I'm not saying it has got there).
In fact I reread your long "critique" msg (dated March 10, 2008 6:42:15 AM PDT) last weekend, and I wasn't sure our understandings of the various proposals are entirely aligned. That's one of the things on my list to comment on. 


On page 1 you seem to indicate that the IPv4 address exhaustion
problem has pushed IPv6 to the "front stage".  This may be the case
for some or many RRG participants, but it is not for me - and I
don't think it is for the vast majority of Internet users or ISPs.
....
I think most ISPs and end-users are primarily worried about the IPv4
address depletion problem and then a distant second about the
routing scaling problem.  I don't know of any end-users or ISPs who
are clamouring to switch their operations over to IPv6 so they don't
need IPv4 addresses any more - which is the only way IPv6 could help
with the IPv4 address depletion problem.
I moved the above 2 paragraphs together since they seem to be on the same/similar issue: the mentioning of v6 is just in passing; we can remove it if that helps reduce confusion. The point we were trying to make: routing scalability is a fundamental problem that can affect many other things (including ipv6 rollout).
below is the paragraph that's in the middle of the above two in your msg: 


I think all the map-encap schemes can assist with IPv4 address
exhaustion by enabling the space to be sliced and diced in smaller
chunks, down to individual IP addresses, in a much less expensive,
more flexible manner - without burdening the BGP system.
if I understand you right here: so you agree with the draft that the map-encap schemes can help routing to scale, even when end users use large number of fragmented, non-aggregatable prefixes, right? 

Lixia




--
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