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

["Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>]

Hi Peter,

Note that the analogy is poor, at best.  It's been shown multiple times that
settlements in an IP environment do not truly reflect usage (who pays:
Google, or the guy that did the search?).  Moreover, the data plane is
significantly different than the control plane.  If you take it in that
direction, do you do settlements of routes?  If so, who pays and why?  If
the sender, then what if the sender's path is not selected as best?  If the
receiver, then what encourages folks to aggregate?

Tony
 

|-----Original Message-----
|From: Peter Sherbin [mailto:pesherb@yahoo.com] 
|Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:01 PM
|To: 'Robin Whittle'; 'Routing Research Group'; tony.li@tony.li
|Subject: RE: [RRG] Geographic aggregation-based routing is at 
|odds with reality
|
|a brilliant mechanism for driving such cooperation,
|
|it is the monetary settlement based on the amount of the 
|exchanged traffic where the originator pays for the delivery. 
|nothing really new here
|
|thanks,
|
|Peter
|
|
|--- On Fri, 7/18/08, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> wrote:
|
|> From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
|> Subject: RE: [RRG] Geographic aggregation-based routing is 
|at odds with reality
|> To: "'Robin Whittle'" <rw@firstpr.com.au>, "'Routing 
|Research Group'" <rrg@psg.com>
|> Date: Friday, July 18, 2008, 11:32 AM
|> Hi Robin,
|> 
|> 
|> |If your position is that a scalable routing and addressing
|> solution
|> |based on geographic aggregation of address space can only
|> be widely
|> |adopted if most or all adoptors (or at least most or all
|> initial
|> |adoptors) do so out of altruism, then I would say this
|> sort of
|> |solution is a non-starter.
|> 
|> 
|> No Robin.  My point was an academic one: if it was possible
|> to get some
|> degree of multi-lateral cooperation from providers, then
|> geo-aggregation at
|> a very coarse level with relaxed rules is _technically_
|> feasible.  This has
|> been under consideration since we first introduced CIDR and
|> it got ejected
|> even then, when there were far more providers in the room.
|> 
|> Moreover, it's not pure altruism: it's a coalition
|> or co-operative
|> agreement.  Altruism would be pure sacrafice for no return.
|>  This clearly
|> has a return, it's just not tightly coupled to the
|> investment.
|> 
|> Note that this same type of mechanism is also going to be
|> necessary to deal
|> with some of the non-architectural deaggregation that's
|> seen today with
|> traffic engineering generated more specifics.
|> 
|> Now, it's been a very long time since the I*TF had the
|> kind of critical mass
|> of operators necessary to begin that type of agreement, and
|> it's been even
|> longer since we've seen folks that had the kind of
|> vision to collaborate for
|> the long term good.  More's the pity.
|> 
|> That said, I'm actually welcome to see geo-aggregation
|> discussed.  It's
|> certainly part of the technical solution space and if
|> someone, as part of
|> the conversation, has a brilliant mechanism for driving
|> such cooperation,
|> then it's all worthwhile.  While we're at it, we
|> can also toss in creating a
|> market for routing slots.  Same set of issues.
|> 
|> 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