[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