Re: [RRG] Geographic aggregation-based routing is at odds with reality

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

Heiner, Iljitsch and Tony,

It seems you support or are prepared to seriously consider a
solution to the scalable routing problem in the form of a
clean-slate approach which requires some, most or all addresses to
be assigned according to the geographical location of the provider
or end-user network.

Bill and I have argued that this is not worth discussing seriously
because we believe the resulting arrangement would be far too much
much at odds with the business (security, policy ...) needs of
providers and end-user networks.

Tony admitted that organisations adopting geo-aggregation (I assume
of a kind which would somehow solve the routing scaling problem)
would need to be motivated other than by the immediate benefits they
would achieve.

  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg01855.html

What criteria of compatibility with existing human nature and
business practices do you have in mind when considering the
practicality of a proposal for solving the routing scaling problem?

Do you think a proposal should still be taken seriously by other
people if it can be shown to be at odds with current and likely
future organisational needs?

If we could change humanity so as to make the needs and behaviour of
organisations accord with the current or future architecture of the
Internet, then we could no-doubt solve the problem much more simply
than by introducing a new addressing scheme and new routers etc.

Just upgrade the necessary subset of humanity so that those who run
end-user networks (and who use them and pay for them) are happy
about not having portable, multihomable space.  Then the demand for
PI space would diminish and the problem would be solved.

LISP, APT, Ivip, TRRP and I think Six-One Router are all intended to
work with the current version of humanity.

For any proposal, there must be some level of requisite upgrades to
humanity and organisational behaviour at which you consider the
proposal to be unworkable.

I think geo-aggregation for the purpose of solving the routing
scaling problem is far over that line.

If you think the changes in organisational behaviour your proposals
require are not over that line, perhaps you could state some greater
degree of requisite change beyond which you would agree that a
proposal was unworkable and not worth discussing seriously.

  - 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