Subject: [RRG] What does "architectural" mean?

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:53:22 +1000

Hi Lixia,

In "Re: [RRG] Moving forward..." you wrote:

> You are not in the non-consensus camp :-)

Yes, but that consensus may be too rough and too restrictive for the
RRG to continue with.  I understand from the recent discussion
between Tony, Bill and perhaps others that the question of whether
we need to pursue an IPv4 solution or not:

   http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg01417.html

   Our recommendation should be applicable to IPv6.  It may or may
   not also apply to IPv4, but at the very least must provide a path
   forward for IPv6.

is up for discussion or at least a more formal vote.

> I had some private exchange with Tony on this issue, but let me put it
> in public to help the consensus gathering: I agree that the solution
> must work for IPv6, but at the same time,

> - IPv4/v6 share the same architecture; the only major fundamental
>   difference is their address space size.

I think this is far too broad-brush.  As Bill Herrin and I have
argued, IPv6's address space, low installed base and lack of urgency
about routing scaling make for a much wider set of possible
solutions, developed over a longer time frame, than would be
possible with for IPv4.

> - my notion of the RRG task is to develop an architectural
>   solution to routing scalability.

How do you define "architectural"?

Do you mean changing the very nature of the thing to be something
which has no scaling problems?  I think of map-encap as an
architectural addition, but other people may regard it as a kludge:
a bolt-on thing which is inelegant and poorly integrated with the
current architecture.  So to them, map-encap is not an architectural
solution.

> - We should step up a level from looking specific versions of
>   IP at this stage of solution development.  Our solution has to be
>   an architectural change, and should work for either version.

As just noted, I think this is too abstract and would lead to a
discussion which ignores important distinctions between IPv4 and
IPv6.  My previous message suggests we pursue three avenues of
research at once, since I think we can't reliably rule out any of
them at present.

  - 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