[RRG] What do we have consensus on?

[Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>]

Hi Tony and Lixia,

Can you list what decisions the RRG has achieved consensus on?

I think clarity on these points would help us reach consensus on
whether to keep open discussions about solutions in the
"Translation" and "Transport" areas of the total possible solution
space.


For instance, is there broad consensus that will the RRG have done
its job if we propose a solution which only works with IPv6?

The RRG Design Goals only mention IPv4 once and do not mention IPv6
in the body of the text.  There is no IPv6 scaling problem and won't
be one for many years - until the adoption level rises well beyond
the current state, which would take a decade or more at current
growth rates.   I assumed we were trying to solve the IPv4 routing
scaling problem, with an eye to doing something similar for IPv6 -
although perhaps not with the same urgency.

Do we have consensus that it is acceptable for our solution to
require host changes to all hosts which participate in
communications which involve the new techniques?   For instance if a
host-based solution doesn't provide scaling benefits when
communicating with a non-upgraded host.

Do we have consensus that if the host-based solution by its very
nature makes it impossible for the network administrator to control
multihoming, portability etc. via central routers, that such an
approach provides suitable benefits to the routing system and to
those who must adopt it that is likely to be widely enough adopted
to make sufficient difference to the routing scaling problem?


  - Robin

--
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