Subject: Re: [rrg] and while we're at it, here's a view from the ground...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:21:50 EDT

The referred presentation asks: Is loc/id-split the solution ? (  to be fair, 
Dino never claimed that LISP is the clean-slate solution)
 
The problem is that the so-called loc/id-split discussion was  just to create 
the aroma for the, by two steps hopping,  LISP. The documents use the term 
"topological aggregatable addresses" but  mean  topologically non-aggregatable 
data (better said:wears the feathers  of topology aggregation but serves a 
model which is to prevent topology  aggregation). The term "loc" is used for 
RLOC-addressing, i.e. for something  which is certainly NOT "location". The term 
"loc/id-split", emphasizing "split",  is misleading too.  If you want to get rid 
of the nasty scalability problem  you must ADD (!!!) LOCATION !!! Yes ADD, 
not split (there hasn't been any  location information yet). Yes LOCATION, not 
something else.Ok, there may be  reasons for splitting i.e. making a clean cut 
between network layer and  transport layer, but this is a different animal and 
 shouldn't be mixed up  with solving a network layer internal problem. 
Instead, this is a transport  layer internal problem, and should be discussed THERE 
!  Well, so far  I mentioned so many results of TARA (getting rid of the 
update churn as well as  of the table size problem, making the IPv4 address 
depletion a non-issue,...).  Maybe I should add, given that routing were done based 
on location,  that  TCP identification can stay as it is, even in case of  
multihoming or mobility (roaming). And there are still more advantages  compared 
with today's inter- domain and also intra-domain routing.
 
I just wonder how the RRG discussion runs. Hereby I learnt to know the term  
"non-starter" (and therefore had to improve TARA as to avoid incremental  
deployability problems). Really, I would never have dared to offer a  solution 
which depends on renumbering. 
 
Heiner

In einer eMail vom 30.10.2008 15:55:00 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/iteotwawki-ipam-mraws3.pdf

Dave

_______________________________________________
rrg mailing  list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: "Teco Boot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:02:52 +0100

> Really, I would never have dared to offer a solution which depends on
renumbering. 

Why not?

I think the majority of Internet users is either fine with PA addresses
(small sites, roaming users) or within very large sites (say top 10.000
organizations).
Both will benefit from improved support for multi-homing. I think smooth
renumbering is just a next step. 

For IPv4, this would not be that easy. I'll not repeat all the objections
already posted.
But give me arguments for not improving multi-homing and smooth renumbering
mechanisms for IPv6 and new applications, and even for IPv4.

Let's not try to boil the ocean, but try to fix some problems. I think every
site that sticks on PA addresses is a contribution to keep DFZ FIB in good
shape.

Teco