[RRG] Consensus? 4 points so we can make progress

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

This will no-doubt displease some folks, but here is a set of points
which I think we need to agree upon soon in order to make sufficient
progress to achieve a useful recommendation in March 2009.

Without such agreement, or something similar, I think we would waste
time arguing about:

   a - A solution which involves significant host changes - and
       therefore which could never be implemented in a reasonable
       time-frame.

   b - Router based translation schemes which can't be practical for
       IPv4.  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg01314.html

   c - The prospects for near-term (next 5 years or so) widespread
       adoption of IPv6 - because we haven't formed a clear
       consensus that we need to solve the IPv4 routing scaling
       problem directly, but think it could or should be solved by
       mass migration from IPv4 to IPv6.


Here is the rough list of points, all of which have been discussed
in greater detail in recent days:

1 - The scope of the RRG's work should focus on IP addresses and
    network based solutions - involving new router functions
    and/or new network elements.  The solution should not involve
    any changes to host stacks or applications, except perhaps
    to optimise performance which is degraded by the main solution.

    Discussion of longer-term architectural solutions involving
    changing or underpinning existing host-level protocols -
    necessarily involving changes to host stacks and/or
    applications - should be directed to another forum.


2 - The solution must work for IPv4 and IPv6 and show promise
    for being adopted by the majority of end-user networks
    in the 3 years following deployment, such as in the 2012 to
    2015 time-frame.  While this adoption will be supported and
    encouraged by administrative and perhaps business arrangements,
    the primary reason for adoption will be the immediate benefits
    to the ISPs and end-user networks.

(We don't have a good definition of "end-user networks", but I
suggest it should include all sizes - existing and new - including
single-host networks: from the largest universities and corporations
down to individuals on DSL lines and with cell-phones.)


3 - The solution must provide portable address space for
    end-user networks without impacting the scaling of the
    current BGP routing system.  (The map-encap schemes do this.)


4 - As already agreed, the solution needs to support multihoming
    and traffic engineering in a scalable fashion.


  - Robin           http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/




--
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