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

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

Hi Scott,

You wrote:

Robin >>> 3 - The solution must provide portable address space for
Robin >>>     end-user networks without impacting the scaling of the
Robin >>>     current BGP routing system.  (The map-encap schemes do
this.)
>
Brian >> I don't agree. The desire for "portable" prefixes is an
Brian >> artefact of IPv4 experience. Let me reformulate.
Brian >>
Brian >>    The solution must allow the option of
Brian >>    provider-independent address space and the option of
Brian >>    multiple provider-dependent address spaces for end-user
Brian >>    networks...
>
> It doesn't even need to do that.  It should allow multihoming and
> easy migration from one point in the topology to another.  How it
> does that is an open question.

I think that neither you or Brian have addressed my arguments:

  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg01310.html

The question of how to enable end-user networks to easily choose
another provider has been around for two decades or so, AFAIK.

In that time, the only solution which has been developed which meets
the needs of end-user networks is portable address space - PI space.

Despite the elaborate and impressive nature of the automatic host
address functions in IPv6, this falls a long way short of the
requirements to reliably, securely, change IP addresses in
configuration files of various daemons, ACLs etc, in various
embedded systems, and in DNS zone files.  (I am not sure that every
end-user network would want to use this automatic host numbering
system.  Perhaps some or many networks need better security and more
explicit control.)

In the long-term, I agree, this remains an open question.

My argument is in the context of the RRG's timetable of coming up
with a reliable, promising, architectural recommendation in March 2009.

19 months after RAWS and 10 (9?) months before deadline, I argue
that we need to settle on portable address space as the solution for
end-user networks' need to change to another provider without
unreasonable cost, disruption and risks.  By doing this we can avoid
spending any more time on any solution which doesn't provide
portability.  I believe the solution should provide portability for
the largest end-user networks such as universities and corporations,
to the smallest, including home-office users and single-host
potentially mobile devices.


Do you think we can come up with any solution for this old problem
other than portability, in the next 9 months?  If so, what would
such a solution look like?

Alternatively, do you think it is reasonable to hold our breath on
this important question as if it could be solved in any way other
than portability?

Portability is a clear solution end-users are familiar with and
actually want - and the map-encap systems provide this portability
without the scaling problems which are the cause of the long-held
objections to portability.

  - 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