Subject: [RADIR] Fwd: [RAM] Comment on draft-farinacci-lisp-00.txt (LISP)

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:41:30 -0700

Folks,

I think Eliot makes a good point in this message when he says "what  
precisely are the scaling characteristics that we are targeting?  If  
we disagree on those points we will surely disagree on the different  
proposals that make differing assumptions."

This would seem to suggest that eventually, a useful problem  
statement would have to answer the question of "what *precisely* are  
the scaling characteristics that we are targeting?"

--John

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
> Date: April 16, 2007 9:31:25 AM PDT
> To: Noel Chiappa <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [RAM] Comment on draft-farinacci-lisp-00.txt (LISP)
>
> Hi Noel,
>> The current discussion seems to be a somewhat unfocussed mix of  
>> "can we
>> operate in this quadrant at all", and details of particular  
>> variants, trying
>> to sort of which particular approach (within the boundary lines  
>> above) works;
>> most of the current discussion is, of course, looking at how to do  
>> the
>> mapping, which is appropriate, because that's probably the hardest  
>> part.
>>
>
> There are two issues.  First, in order to figure out whether "we  
> can operate in this quandrant at all", you're of course correct  
> that we need to understand the details to some reasonable degree.   
> But I think there is another question that is nagging at each step,  
> which is what precisely are the scaling characteristics that we are  
> targeting?  If we disagree on those points we will surely disagree  
> on the different proposals that make differing assumptions.  And so  
> it's probably not unwise to question, for instance, the number of  
> mappings needed.  Now seems like a good time for that.
>
> Eliot
>
> _______________________________________________
> RAM mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram
>

_______________________________________________
RADIR mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:49:00 -0400

> proposals that make differing assumptions."

My fear is that if we spend a lot of time here trying to come up with
numbers and such, we will cycle endlessly about whether it can or
can't be done given planned/future hardware.

> the scaling characteristics that we are targeting?"

Thinking about some comments from last week, one aspect of the problem
that we haven't captured (and maybe should?) is that a big problem
today is that we don't really have true (or adequte) heirarchies in
routing, where information propagates across the boundaries only under
controlled circumstances. I.e., we have basically two levels, internal
and external/everywhere.

Perhaps we also need to work on how to limit propagation of
information to something between "internal" and "everywhere", that
would presumably also address the pain, but provide some of the
benefits of full propagation.

Thomas