Subject: [arch-d] routing and addressing hierarchy

From: Nagahashi Kengo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:59:13 -0800

Folks,

Due to several suggestions(thanks Avri), I would post both lists.

Background: we've presented crisp-wg about routing registry 
enabled crisp framework which is XML based query/responce protocol.

A major discussing point is that routing registry
is somewhat different with others; address and domain
are already published as rfc. The reason is that
address and domain perform clear hierarchy on the other
hand, routing is not.

we would really know this argument is true or not from
the view point of architecture.

cheers.

-kengo

_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:40:12 +0000

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:59:13 -0800

> the view point of architecture.

Nagahashi-San, my view is that this is not an Internet Architecture
issue, this is an *organizational* issue: the ISPs do not show a desire
to use a hierarchy of IRR to coordinate their route announces in
registry form: they are happy with a loose mesh.

So this is not an internet architecture issue, its about organization
in the policy/operations space for the global routing community.

I think there is *considerable* merit in having XML specification of
the routing information, to permit XML tokenized data to be used by
people and I wish to make sure people understand this is of wider
benefit to the community. 

This is distinct from the operational, organizational aspects of your
draft. If you separate these observations on national routing
hierarchies, how to tier and inter-relate registries from the idea of
having an XML representation of routing, I think that will be useful.

Your community (the JP IRR working group) has been presenting on
coordinated IRR at NANOG, and IETF, and regional RIR meetings for some
time now, over 4 years to my knowledge. In that time, you have received
much feedback from the north american and european community that they
do NOT wish to see national, mandated registry schemes, or coordinated
regional hierarchies: the operators do not wish to follow this model.

I think you have to reflect on what this means for your proposals.

If CRISP receives guidance from the AD that there is applicability for
your work in our WG, I am sure we will accept it and work on it.

cheers, and thankyou for bringing this into the wider discussion by
your presentation at the plenary: I think this was a good thing
to do.

-George

-- 
George Michaelson       |  APNIC                 
Email: [email-masked]    |  PO Box 2131 Milton    
Phone: +61 7 3858 3150  |  QLD 4064 Australia    
  Fax: +61 7 3858 3199  |  http://www.apnic.net

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:06:46 +0100

> the view point of architecture.

It seems to me that until some dramatic breakthrough occurs in
routing theory, by definition the global (BGP) routing information
is flat and not hierarchical. That doesn't mean it can't be
represented in XML; but it will look different.

I assume you are aware of RFC 2622.

     Brian

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:42:00 +0100

At 10:06 25/11/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>Background: we've presented crisp-wg about routing registry enabled 
>>crisp framework which is XML based query/responce protocol.
>routing theory,

I understand the purpose of this very list is to discuss such very 
breakthroughs.
I am not excited about XML except for study and demoing. Do you have 
an URL on your work?
jfc