Subject: [RRG] Call for contributions

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:57:36 -0800

Hi all,

We are still looking for talks, drafts and papers on both problem  
analysis and proposed solutions.  We are not only interested in fully  
worked out schemes, but are also interested in new ideas and are  
especially interested in seeing proposals from researchers.

We strongly prefer presentations and documents that are available  
before the seminar.  Unfortunately, the deadline for -00 Internet  
Drafts has already passed, so you may instead make your presentation  
or document available via other means and post your URL to the  
mailing list.

Please contact Lixia & me if you are interested in presenting.   
Currently scheduled talks are listed below.

Regards,
Lixia & Tony

----------------------------------------------

Vince Fuller            Scaling issues w/routing & multihoming
Dave Oran               LISP
Lixia Zhang             eFIT
Joy Zhang               Shrinking and Controlling Routing Table Size

--
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: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:18:16 -0800

> Unfortunately, the deadline for -00 Internet Drafts has already  
> passed, ...

Several folks have been kind enough to point out that I've erred.   
The correct deadline is Feb 26 0900 ET.

Thanks for the corrections...
Tony

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:25:38 -0800

On Feb 21, 2007, at 8:57 PM, Tony Li wrote:
> analysis and proposed solutions.  We are not only interested in  
> fully worked out schemes, but are also interested in new ideas and  
> are especially interested in seeing proposals from researchers.
>
> Drafts has already passed, so you may instead make your  
> presentation or document available via other means and post your  
> URL to the mailing list.

for eFIT, my team is preparing a draft to be submitted before the  
deadline (2/26).
we also have a second draft which most likely will miss the deadline;  
we'll follow Tony's suggestion of posting a URL to the group when we  
are done.

---

From: Olivier Bonaventure <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:17:12 +0100

Dear All,

> especially interested in seeing proposals from researchers.

The locator-id split can be implemented in various ways (shim6, HIP,
LISP, ...). One of the motivations for this split is to reduce the size
of the BGP routing tables. However, I would like to point out that there
are other advantages of such a split, notably from a traffic engineering
viewpoint. We have worked on such schemes during the last years, both
from a shim6 perspective and a LISP perspective  and I would like to
summarize some of our results. Several of them have been published in
the scientific literature. I propose to present a summary of our current
work during the RRG meeting in Prague.

A first advantage of locator-id split is that this increases the number
of paths available for the stub ASes or the endsystems. Assuming shim6,
we have shown that when PA addresses are used, the number of disjoint
paths available to the endystems is much larger with a locator-id split
solution than with traditionnal IPv4 multihoming. Our simulations also
show that the end-to-end delay can be significantly reduced. See e.g. :

C. de Launois, B. Quoitin, and O. Bonaventure. Leveraging network
performances with IPv6 multihoming and multiple provider-dependent
aggregatable prefixes. In 3rd International Workshop on QoS in
Multiservice IP Networks (QoSIP 2005), Catania, Italy, February 2-4th
2005, extended version appeared in Computer Networks

Second delay is a traffic engineering objective to be minimised, we have
also shown that virtual coordinate systems could be used to select the
path with the lowest delay without exchanging too many messages, see :

- C. de Launois, S. Uhlig, and O. Bonaventure. Scalable route selection
for IPv6 multihomed sites. In Proceedings of Networking 2005, Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada, May 2-6th 2005.

Third, a common traffic engineering problem for stub ASes is to load
balance their interdomain traffic among its providers. A key advantage
of the locator-id split solutions is that they allow to control both the
incoming and the outgoing traffic while curent IPv4-based multihoming
solutions are only able to efficiently control the flow of the outgoing
traffic. We have addressed this problem by assuming a shim6-like
solution in :

C. de Launois, O. Bonaventure, and M. Lobelle. The NAROS approach for
IPv6 multihoming with traffic engineering. In 4th COST 263 International
Workshop on Quality of Future Internet Services (QoFIS 2003), volume
LNCS 2811, pages 112-121, Stockholm, Sweden, October 1-3rd 2003.
Springer-Verlag.

These papers are available from
http://totem.info.ucl.ac.be/publications.html

For a LISP-like solution, similar resultats have been obtained in
chapter 5 of Bruno Quoitin's PhD thesis entitled "BGP-based Interdomain
Traffic Engineering" and published in September 2006
( http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~bqu/academic.html )

This chapter is a revised version of earlier work on the utilization of
tunnels :
B. Quoitin and O. Bonaventure. A cooperative approach to interdomain
traffic engineering. In 1st Conference on Next Generation Internet
Networks Traffic Engineering (NGI 2005), Rome, Italy, April 18-20th 2005

See also
O. Bonaventure, C. de Launois, B. Quoitin, M. Yanuzzi, Improving the
quality of interdomain paths by using IP tunnels and the DNS,
unpublished technical report, January 2005, available from
http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~obo/papers/tr-improving.pdf

>From an implementation viewpoint, we are interested in both shim6-like
solutions and LISP-like solutions. We are currently implementing shim6
in the Linux kernel, see http://gforge.info.ucl.ac.be/projects/shim6
We are also interested in developing an implementation for a LISP-like
solution.

We are willing to contribute to the work of the RRG. Due to time
constraints, we could not write an internet draft in ASCII format but
are ready to write one for the next RRG meeting.

Best regards,

Olivier Bonaventure
-- 
CSE Dept. UCL, Belgium - http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~obo

---

From: Victor Grishchenko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:05:12 +0500

Hi!

Here http://oc-co.org/articles/topo-article.pdf is my proposal, the  
TAMARA routing model. Objectives for the model were:
* self-configuration/self-organization/self-optimization
* infinite scalability
* reliability, seamless failover

Key design ideas were
* route probing (the principle resembles TCP window scaling)
* use of address bunches (toponames)
* automatic address assignment at all levels

BTW, TAMARA has almost no control plane/data plane separation on the  
following reason. Self-organization means that state of data plane  
affects control plane, so we'll get a loop. According to the  
simplicity principle, the best loop is a point, so better control and  
data planes be joined.

					Victor Grishchenko
					research fellow
					IPAM USU