[RRG] RE: What do we have consensus on?

["Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>]

Hi Robin,
 

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


There are a few things that we have consensus on and even then there are
contingencies on that consensus.  Specifically, for the mapping function, we
have consensus that we should support host specific identifiers, as well as
blocks.  We also have consensus that mapping systems that there should be
active mechanisms for dealing with overload situations.  


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


No, not at all.  

|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.


Bad assumption.  We have the same problem in v6 that we do in v4 since the
architecture is identical.  Solving v4 without solving v6 is just a bandaid.
Hopefully, we can do better.  IMHO, it would be sufficient to fix just the
v6 side of things, but again, that's personal opinion.


|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.


No, we don't have consensus on that.  We don't have consensus that host
changes are prohibited either.


|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?


Nope, we don't have consensus on that either.

Tony


--
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