Subject: Re: [RRG] Try again

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 09:31:45 +1200

On 2008-05-29 02:25, David Conrad wrote:
...
> What can we keep in the existing infrastructure and architecture and
> still "Do It Right"?
> 
> Or perhaps, what part of the existing infrastructure and architecture
> should we jettison because it isn't necessary and/or is wrong?

I fear that are some parts that may be wrong but have to be kept
because, er, that's how the Internet has been constructed.

To be specific, in 1974 Louis Pouzin wrote:
"There is no need to interpret the destination address any more
than required to find an appropriate gateway in the correct direction.
Putting gateway names in addresses is unacceptable, as it would
tie up addressing and network topology. Thus, only PSN [packet
switched network] names should be used as catenet [internet]
addresses. Delivering a message to a final destination is carried
out only by the final PSN."

Pouzin also proposed an address format:
	<Format> <PSN name> <Local name>
where the local name is explicitly of variable length.

Now, I fear he was right, but that's not what got implemented.
We got a model based on fixed length addresses without a format
prefix. I didn't see in the IPng discussion and don't see now how
we can jettison that.

I don't disagree with your argument, but we may not be able to
"do it right" in the sense of mathematical perfection. We have to
"do it as right as possible given the starting point."

> The reason I ask is that is seems to me that much of the discussion
> lately has appeared to me to be based upon widely varying base
> assumptions about what is and isn't necessary to "Do It Right".  I
> suspect it might be hard to reach consensus if this were to be the case...

Maybe we need a list of things that will not change?

    Brian

--
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