[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] RRG process clarification
On Apr 18, 2008, at 3:25 PM, HeinerHummel@aol.com wrote:
Lars,
even the existing routing paradigms should be questioned.
LISP doesn't do anything for Multicast, it doesn't do anything wrt
the IPv4 depletion issue, it produces new update churn as to fight
existing update churn.
Or: Wasn't IPv6 the future? Now the new routing architecture is
supposed to be backward compatible with IPv4 AND !!! IPv6. Hasn't
IPv6 got its chance and didn't it miss this chance ?
What about the orthogonality between intra- and interdomain routing
protocols?! Isn't this a pity ?
in the spirit of discussing architectural issues: wonder if you could
turn the above specifics into some architectural issues that you feel
we need to pay attention to?
I mentioned Multicast and LISP above. I should defend LISP. All
existing multicast models have an enormous flaw: they are not state-
less. This can be changed and -imo- should be changed.
Summary: There could be such a bright future for routing.But not if
BGP, i.e. the distance vector algorithm, is considered a holy cow.
Heiner
--
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