Re: [RRG] Long term clean-slate only for the RRG?

[David Williamson <dlw+rrg@tellme.com>]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 01:17:09PM -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> My point was that, if my thinking is correct (and if it's not, can someone
> please point out where I've gone wrong), it's not reasonable to
> simultaneously say 'I want location/identity separation' and also say 'I
> don't want to change existing host software' and 'I think a big mapping
> database is not feasible'. If you want the first, one of the next two _has_
> to give; the only question is _which_.

I agree.  The first statement implies either host changes, or some sort
of network wide mapping.  As an operator, I'm feeling a bti stuck by
this quandry, though.  I definitely want the loc/id split, since that
seems like the most direct way forward to avoid the scaling problem.
On the other hand, large scale host changes seem difficult and tiem
consuming.  And I have serious concerns about how we move from the
current routing regime to something that depends on a network wide
database.  If you operate a service where reliability and reachability
are key, that transition period could be extremely painful, and may not
be possible without further impact to the scaling problem (by carrying
a full set of conventional routes *and* handling some sort of
map-and-encap protocol at the same time, for example.)

Perhaps it's a lack of imagination, but I seem to find myself in a maze
of twisty passages every time I head down this path.  I'd like to
explore scaling alternatives for the routing system that aren't tied to
loc/id splits, but I have thus far failed to figure out what that might
possibly be.

I think you nailed it in terms of the dependencies.  I just don't like
them.

-David

--
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