[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
re: [RRG] GSE?
Hi Tony,
> Again, I would like to get out of the mode of talking about individual
> proposals. If folks want to have a conceptual discussion about
> transformation solutions in general, I'd welcome that.
Understandable. My real intent is also to make some discussion about the
transformation solution in general. GSE is just a starter.
Without enough discussion and argument on similar proposals, we can not
deeply understand the pros and cons of these proposals and consequently can
not reach some consensus on the architecture in RRG.
Xiaohu XU
> |-----Original Message-----
> |From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
> |Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 4:22 PM
> |To: Xu Xiaohu
> |Cc: tony.li@tony.li; lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU; 'Routing Research Group'
> |Subject: 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