[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Consequences of no renumbering...
I've been in perhaps longest sequence of silence: after falling
behind, it's so hard to catch up! I'm still mid of the loooong
renumbering exchanges and attempting to make a summary out of it.
But allow me jump ahead this time:
On Sep 10, 2008, at 8:00 PM, Tony Li wrote:
Hi all,
So in thinking more about our recent consensus on renumbering, it
seems to
me that this helps us prune the solution tree a bit. In particular:
- For the entire class of 'transport' solutions that we've
discussed, it
seems like renumbering would always be required for these
solutions. All of
the obvious transport protocol changes would utilize multiple PA
addresses,
and since changing PA addresses would result in a renumbering event,
it
seems like these solutions should be avoided.
Just to clarify:
- multipath transport solutions (e.g. like the one Mark Handley
presented in Dublin), potentially can bring great benefits to users
and applications.
- as I presented in Dublin, transport solutions can work, orthogonal
to whether using PI or multiple PA addresses.
- the only thing that seems problematic is an attempt to scale the
routing system by relying on all edge networks doing renumbering.
- For the map-and-encap solutions, there seems like a similar
issue. If we
look at the current LISP transition plan, there is currently a
requirement
for sites to renumber once to get into an aggregateable EID space.
again let me clarify:
- there are multiple proposals on the RRG table that fall into the
general map-and-encap direction. In general they do not require
renumbering.
- LISP people can correct me here, but I believe the renumbering issue
for ALT is an attempt to system optimization.
If renumbering is not required, then EID space doesn't aggregate. If
transition boxes (PTRs) advertised EID space into legacy routing,
then it
would imply that there wouldn't be any reduction in prefix count until
transition was wholly complete. That doesn't seem very practical.
I'm not ready to say that there aren't transition schemes that could
get
around this, but these are the issues that I'm seeing.
Comments?
Nomex on,
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