Subject: [RRG] Reactivating the RAM list?

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:31:01 +1100

Hi Vince,

In "Re: LISP next steps" you wrote:

> Since there would appear to be much to discuss in this space and
> that a great deal of that discussion has now been deemed
> out-of-scope for the RRG, perhaps it is time to re-active the
> "[email-masked]" list and take the general topic of R&A scalling
> back there.

I am just reading the list - I haven't listened to Friday's meeting
or all of Tuesday's - but my understanding is that the only topic
Tony ruled out is the discussion of the LISP BOF.  I agree the RAM
list would be a good venue to continue that discussion.

If mobility is ruled out of scope on the RRG list, I think the RAM
list would be a good place to discuss it too.  While Tony has
repeatedly pointed out that people will use routing for mobility,
and that therefore we need to discuss it, he wrote two messages
recently:

  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg00772.html
  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg00774.html

indicating that we should drop the mobility discussion for now.

I am keen to discuss direct mobility support in map-encap schemes,
because I think it is a really promising field, and because I think
the common assumption that mapping must change for every new care-of
address or access network is wrong.  I think mobility works best
with low latency mapping changes (ideally a few seconds, certainly
less than a few minutes), but that the mapping changes themselves
will be infrequent, since most folks don't move 1000km or so very often:

  http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/#mobile

I am also wary of the notion of trying to set an upper bound on the
rate of mapping changes, because this may involve an assumption that
each mapping change doesn't pay its way and so causes unreasonable
burdens on other parties.  That is true of BGP or APT, but is
substantially not the case for Ivip or potentially other proposals.

There could also be a desire to debate the merits of the RRG
process, if some folks find it too constraining, or have concerns
about the time-frame.

The RRG charter:

   http://www.irtf.org/charter?gtype=rg&group=rrg

includes:

   The RRG will have an open general discussion mailing list
   where any topic of interest to the routing research community
   can be discussed, and topics related to scalable routing
   architectures are particularly encouraged.

The LISP BOF is clearly a matter of interest in this field, yet it
has been ruled out of scope.

If the co-chairs choose to rule certain topics out of scope, I would
prefer to use another mailing list as well rather than argue the RRG
scope should be wider than they desire.

The great thing about mailing lists is that there can be more than
one of them.  The main list can be focussed as its moderators
choose, without genuinely suppressing discussion - since there are
always other mailing lists for discussing whatever would clutter the
main list, including out-of scope topics, the moderation policy of
the main list etc.

 - Robin

--
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

---

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:36:50 -0700

|If mobility is ruled out of scope on the RRG list, I think the RAM
|list would be a good place to discuss it too.  While Tony has
|repeatedly pointed out that people will use routing for mobility,
|and that therefore we need to discuss it, he wrote two messages
|recently:
|
|  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg00772.html
|  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg00774.html
|
|indicating that we should drop the mobility discussion for now.

... And the operative words here are "for now".  I have every intention of
returning to the topic at the appropriate time, but for the sake of making
forward progress, it seems like there are some more basic issues that we can
deal with (granularity & churn) and then revisit mobility in a bit.  If, for
example, we conclude that we want host level granularity and can support a
churn of 1 nano-second, then the entire mobility disucssion is moot.  So
let's decide where we are on the basic issues and then come back to the more
complex issues.

|I am also wary of the notion of trying to set an upper bound on the
|rate of mapping changes, because this may involve an assumption that
|each mapping change doesn't pay its way and so causes unreasonable
|burdens on other parties.  That is true of BGP or APT, but is
|substantially not the case for Ivip or potentially other proposals.

Interesting point.  I'm not quite following.  Is this is an intrinsic
difference between push and pull, or is there something more?

Tony

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:27:19 +0200

The RAM list, created by IAB, was closed in an effort to focus the
architectural work in one place and not have it happen on both the RAM
and RRG lists. I think that was a good decision and still is a good
state of affairs. Note that back then (and now) it was always envisioned
that there could be other lists, too, for specific issues. Personally, I
don't think we need another general list for this topic at this time.

Jari

---

From: Randall Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:22:05 -0700

Earlier, Tony Li wrote:
% ... And the operative words here are "for now".  I have every intention of
% returning to the topic at the appropriate time, but for the sake of making
% forward progress, it seems like there are some more basic issues that
% we can deal with (granularity & churn) and then revisit mobility in a bit.

That is all well and good, but it also seems that folks who are inclined
to talk about mobility now can simply move that over to the IAB RAM
list until the chairs think it is appropriate to move that back to the Routing
RG list.

I understand the need for chairs to manage a WG or RG list, but surely
you aren't trying to prohibit interested parties from having other
conversations elsewhere...

Ran

---

From: Randall Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:28:05 -0700

Earlier, Jari wrote:
% The RAM list, created by IAB, was closed in an effort to focus the
% architectural work in one place and not have it happen on both the RAM
% and RRG lists. I think that was a good decision and still is a good
% state of affairs. Note that back then (and now) it was always envisioned
% that there could be other lists, too, for specific issues. Personally, I
% don't think we need another general list for this topic at this time.

Jari,

Perhaps someone should setup a non-IAB/non-IRTF list for interested
parties who choose not to have their free speech restricted unduly.

I understand the need of RG/WG chairs to manage their own lists;
I don't understand the desire to prohibit interested parties from
conversing elsewhere about topics of mutual interest.

Yours,

Ran