Subject: Re: [RRG] Renumbering...

From: Stephen Sprunk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:15:24 -0500

[Edited and resent due to nutty email filters on the list]

Dino Farinacci wrote:
>> SHIM6, HIP, and multiple PA blocks were not, and are still not, 
>> considered viable options; my understanding of this RRG was to come 
>> up with something that the "un-stoppable force" would find acceptable 
>> so that it could be redirected that way.
>
> Stephen, in your own words, why are they not viable?

SHIM6 and HIP are immediately out because they required a change to all 
hosts before benefits accrued (see also: a last-mover advantage), which 
could not be fully deployed soon enough to matter, based on the 
industry's track record so far of implementing even _basic_ IPv6 support.

Multiple PA blocks is slightly more attractive because it is (in theory) 
incrementally deployable, but it requires that every time an upstream 
link goes up or down, you have to renumber your entire network 
(including DNS, DHCP, etc.), plus lose any open TCP sockets that were 
bound to addresses in the block being removed.  Compared to the mostly 
external costs of PI, that's out as well.

> And does the registry community think a Loc/ID split solution is 
> acceptable? I mean, maybe not the specific solutions that deliver 
> Loc/ID split but the concept?

The concept of a Loc/ID split is very attractive, and many folks over 
the years have been clamoring for that for a variety of different 
reasons.  It fits the mental model of how people view networks (or any 
objects) better than the current (flawed) model of overloading locators 
to also serve as identifiers.

The current proposals only take that split to a site level, and 
conceptually that's still not ideal, but it's a lot better than what we 
have today and could provide a base for further (intra-site) work if 
desired.

> And if you have opinions why LISP would be acceptable (or not) please 
> provide.

I like the concept of LISP, but I need to spend a lot more time studying 
the specifics of the mapping systems before I can offer my own comments 
on individual proposals, but at a high level, I don't see any specific 
problems with Map&Encap.  The cost is low and benefits accrue 
immediately to the people who pay it, and no change to hosts or most 
routers is required.  Of course, I'm only speaking for myself here, not 
the entire PI horde ;-)

There's still the looming question of who's going to provide the initial 
Anycast ITRs that are needed to make incremental deployment and reaching 
critical mass possible, but there are several different reasonable 
solutions to that problem and so I'm not very concerned about it at this 
point.

S

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] 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