Subject: [RRG] Consensus check: renumbering

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:48:33 -0700

Hi all,

We've only gotten a handfull of responses to our consensus check.  The poll
can be found here:

http://www.doodle.ch/participation.html?pollId=ziu439pxxpcx33da

I'd really like to see some broader participation.  We've certainly heard
lots of opinions, so I know that you're out there...

Thanks,
Tony

--
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: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:01:06 -0700

I haven't voted because the question is not precise enough:

> Initiated by Tony Li.
> Assuming current renumbering technology, what amount of renumbering  
> can be required in the RRG's recommended routing architecture?

"current renumbering technology" could mean a whole lot of things  
including typing in new addresses. "amount" doesn't provide any value  
and can't be quantified to any value. And "RRG recommend architecture"  
is also vague. Does it mean a new routing architecture or the Loc/ID  
split architectures we have been discussing?

If the question was:

Does a Locator/ID split solution require sites or core devices to  
renumber before it actually can work?

It would be easier to answer honestly.

Dino

---

From: "Heinrich Hummel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:34:38

Nor have I. IMHO ( because I am not the expert on this) renumbering is the worst because it impacts the entire internet. Also, no one has so far explained/quantified the gain nor how renumbering should be done.
And ( I have to repeat myself): It does not  improve anything wrt mobility, multihoming, multipath forwarding, TE for the sake of traffic balancing or congestion handling,....
What 's research got to do with renumbering? I really don't know.
If renumbering once or renumbering repeatively is a topic, so why does no researcher  question the hereby used routing paradigm itself ?! 
Heiner

-------- Kabel E-Mail Reply ---------------
From: [email-masked]
To : [email-masked]
Date: 28.08.2008 20:16:13

If the question was:

Dino

On Aug 28, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Tony Li wrote:

> archive: & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:21:14 +1000

Hi Dino,

> I haven't voted because the question is not precise enough:

...

> It would be easier to answer honestly.

Still, what kind of site does the question refer to?

  A site with a single PA IP address such as my DSL service?

  A large PA site - hundreds, thousands of addresses perhaps?

  A small PI site - whatever that means?

  A corporation or university PI site?

I think there is a hope that we can make progress by by asking
high-level questions and gaining rough consensus on an answer.  I
think there is also a temptation not to make questions too complex
in the hope of gaining agreement.

I agree with having broad, in-principle, high-level discussions to
try to break the hold of any fixed assumptions which might be
constraining more detailed discussions.

However, if the question is so lacking in specifics that no-one can
answer it clearly - or if we do gain consensus on an answer, but the
question open to very different interpretations - then I don't think
this is the way forward.

For instance, five different people could honestly answer the
current question in the same way - so it appears they agree.
However, if each has a significantly different understanding of what
a "site" is, then there is no actual consensus.

  - Robin

---

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:56:53 -0700

Hi Dino,

|> Assuming current renumbering technology, what amount of renumbering  
|> can be required in the RRG's recommended routing architecture?
|
|"current renumbering technology" could mean a whole lot of things  
|including typing in new addresses. 

Indeed.  Current techology includes a lot of manual work, scripting, and
DHCP.  In some cases, it may also involve some site management tools.  I'm
told that Tivoli, for example, can help with this.

|"amount" doesn't provide any value  
|and can't be quantified to any value. 

The amount is specified in the options of the poll: 

   1. None at all
   2. Once only
   3. Once per ISP added or dropped
   4. Lots

|And "RRG recommend 
|architecture"  
|is also vague. Does it mean a new routing architecture or the Loc/ID  
|split architectures we have been discussing?

Yes.  Again, the RRG is chartered to recommend a new routing and addressing
architecture.  Currently the locator/identifier split has the largest
mindshare.

Tony

---

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:59:42 -0700

Hi Robin,

|Still, what kind of site does the question refer to?
|
|  A site with a single PA IP address such as my DSL service?
|
|  A large PA site - hundreds, thousands of addresses perhaps?
|
|  A small PI site - whatever that means?
|
|  A corporation or university PI site?

E) All of the above.

Any reasonable routing architecture has to deal meaningfully with all of
these types of sites.  Differentiating between site types is somewhat
difficult, as inevitably there is some benefit one way or another and it
becomes politically intractable to maintain effective separation.

Tony