[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] GSE?
Hi,
I think the interesting question is: how many of those
issues apply to ILNP?
Also remember that some of the esd-analysis issues were
disputed, which is really why the document never became
an RFC.
Brian
On 2008-06-12 16:29, Xu Xiaohu wrote:
> Hi Tony and Lixia,
>
> How about launching the review and discussion on the listed issues of GSE in
> draft-ietf-ipngwg-esd-analysis-05 one by one, so as to see whether some of
> them are still big issues from current point of view and to find something
> we can do now to fix these issues?
>
> Best regards,
> Xiaohu XU
>
>> -----邮件原件-----
>> 发件人: owner-rrg@psg.com [mailto:owner-rrg@psg.com] 代表 Tony Li
>> 发送时间: 2008年6月12日 1:35
>> 收件人: 'Mayutan A.'; 'Robin Whittle'
>> 抄送: 'Routing Research Group'
>> 主题: RE: [RRG] GSE?
>>
>>
>> Hi Mayutan, Robin,
>>
>> Isn't the Six-One proposal by Christian Vogt an enhancement of the
>> GSE.
>> http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-vogt-rrg-six-one-01.txt
>>
>> Correct me if I am wrong.
>>
>> You are exactly correct. I still encourage folks to read GSE
> independently,
>> just so you have some perspective on Christian's changes.
>>
>> Also, some of the work that Ran Atkinson has done has been in part derived
>> from GSE.
>>
>>
>> GSE seems to have been developed briefly around 1997. I
>> understand
>> that applying it to IPv6 as used today would involve major
>> changes
>> in routers, host stacks and some or all applications.
>>
>> There may well be some major attractions in doing this, if
>> it could
>> be done, but it sounds like a radical thing on which to bet
>> the
>> future of the Net.
>>
>>
>> Welcome to the IRTF. Our job is research. No job too large, no change
>> unthinkable.
>>
>>
>> Could you or someone else put together a proposal and link
>> to it
>> from the RRG wiki? An 8 page summary and analysis document
>> would be
>> good too.
>>
>>
>> Others should feel free to step up here. I'm trying to remain neutral.
>>
>>
>> A crucial part of this would be the time-frame for
>> transitioning the
>> current IPv6 system to whatever it is you are planning, and
>> then
>> having a transition plan for most end-users from IPv4 to the
>> new system.
>>
>> I think it would also be good to explain why you would
>> prefer to do
>> this in a hurry for IPv6 - due to whatever urgency you or
>> other
>> people might think about the IPv4 scaling problem - rather
>> than
>> fixing the IPv4 problem with a map-encap scheme and then
>> being able
>> to take more time on whatever it is you propose for IPv6.
>>
>>
>> I'm not in a hurry to do anything. There's no need. I'd much rather Get
> It
>> Right. Whatever we do here is forever.
>>
>>
>> I haven't read enough to know how it provides multihoming
>> and
>> portability (of the ESD part of the address) when changing
>> ISPs.
>>
>>
>> The ESD would be a constant when changing ISPs. That's the whole point.
>> Identifiers are decoupled from locators.
>>
>>
>> So how does the Routing Goop and STP get set when the packet
>> leaves
>> the site for another? Does a router change them or does the
>> sending
>> host have to get it right. Does there need to be a mapping
>> function
>> and consequently a mapping database to determine what to set
>> these
>> to, since the ESD is what uniquely identifies the
>> destination host?
>>
>>
>> Presumably set by a router when you exit the subnet and/or the site. Yes,
>> there needs to be a mapping database to determine destination RG and ESD.
>> One might reasonably extend DNS to do this. No mapping database is needed
>> in the site's local routers as they would presumably be configured with
> the
>> RG or learn it via some other management mechanism such as SNMP, DHCP, the
>> IGP, or your favorite NMS.
>>
>>
>> What lead to the demise of GSE ten years ago?
>>
>>
>> I wasn't directly involved, but my read was that it was politics. Because
>> it modified v6, it was unacceptable to those that felt that v6 was
> perfect.
>> We seem to be over that now...
>>
>> Regards,
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
--
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