Subject: [rrg] moving towards recommendation: the current plan

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:19:21 -0800

RRG is due for a recommendation to IETF on scalable routing solution  
by March 2010 IETF meeting.
Here is the plan and schedule for the recommendation process as we  
discussed at the Friday meeting:
12/15: deadline for the final call for proposals that want to be  
considered for final recommendation.

after this date, RRG will have focused discussion on contrasting,  
comparing and critiques of all the candidate proposals.

2/15/10: ending date for the comparison and critiques; starting date  
for drafting recommendation document.

March 2010 (next IETF): submitting first version of RRG recommendation  
draft

I just looked up the IETF 77 schedule:

   2010-03-01 (Monday): Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document  
(-00)
   submission by 17:00 PST (01:00 UTC), upload using IETF ID  
Submission Tool.

SO this only gives us 2 weeks for writeup. Hopefully text will start  
getting drafted during the comparison study and we can spend these two  
weeks mostly for structuring the document.

RRG co-chairs

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:39:43 -0800

> comparing and critiques of all the candidate proposals.

I missed the meeting in Hiroshima so sorry if others know the answer  
to this.

But do you have a current list of proposals?

And what are you asking for when you way "final call for proposals"?  
Do you mean the Analysis Drafts that were written a year or so ago?

For instance, these:

Thanks,
Dino

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:50:32 -0800

Dino,

Yes, that plus the list of proposals that have been presented are all 
under consideration.  Obviously some of these are dormant and if the 
proponents choose not to submit text towards the recommendation 
document, we can consider them dead.

Tony

Dino Farinacci wrote:
> I missed the meeting in Hiroshima so sorry if others know the answer to 
> this.
> 
> And what are you asking for when you way "final call for proposals"? Do 
> you mean the Analysis Drafts that were written a year or so ago?
> 
> For instance, these:
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Dino
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:58:50 -0800

> Dino,
>
> Yes, that plus the list of proposals that have been presented are  
> all under consideration.  Obviously some of these are dormant and if  
> the proponents choose not to submit text towards the recommendation  

Can you post the current active list?

Thanks,
Dino

>
>
> Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>> RRG is due for a recommendation to IETF on scalable routing  
>>> solution by March 2010 IETF meeting.
>> I missed the meeting in Hiroshima so sorry if others know the  
>> answer to this.
>> And what are you asking for when you way "final call for  
>> proposals"? Do you mean the Analysis Drafts that were written a  
>> year or so ago?
>> For instance, these:

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:26:26 +1100

> document, we can consider them dead.

I am glad the RRG will soon (15 December) be discussing *proposals*.

  - Robin              http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:53:04 -0500

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]> wrote:
> RRG is due for a recommendation to IETF on scalable routing solution by
> March 2010 IETF meeting.
> Here is the plan and schedule for the recommendation process as we discussed
> at the Friday meeting:
> 12/15: deadline for the final call for proposals that want to be considered
> for final recommendation.

Hi Lixia,

Are you looking for a protocol proposal (a la LISP) or would a process
proposal be considered? By a "process proposal" I mean something like:
"Complete the work in the multipathtcp wg with this list of
requirements, complete the work on the mif wg with this list of
requirements, etc."

Thanks,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ [email-masked]  [email-masked]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:59:04 -0800

> Can you post the current active list?

Sorry, digging all of that up is a bit of work.  Again, it's pretty 
straightforward from the Wiki.  What's the question behind the question?

Tony

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:05:21 -0800

Bill,

> requirements, complete the work on the mif wg with this list of

A process proposal or a protocol proposal are both less of interest than 
an architectural proposal.  Obviously, details within an architecture 
are welcome.

Tony

---

From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:01:17 +0100

Dear Lixia,

> considered for final recommendation.

I would like to add the GLI-Split proposal. It is an address-rewriting 
approach using NAT66. It is similar to SixOne-Router, but goes beyond 
that by allowing for global and local locators. The document can be 
found here:
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~menth/Publications/papers/Menth08-GLI-Split.pdf
We believe that if NAT66 is an option for a future addressing and naming 
architecture, GLI-Split can contribute some interesting thoughts.

Kind regards,

    Michael

>   2010-03-01 (Monday): Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document (-00)
>   submission by 17:00 PST (01:00 UTC), upload using IETF ID Submission 
> Tool.
>

-- 
Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor
University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science
Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206
phone: (+49)-931/31-86644 (new), fax: (+49)-931/888-6632
mailto:[email-masked]
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:32:17 -0500

> straightforward from the Wiki.  What's the question behind the  

If it is a fair amount of work, it seems to me it would be better to  
do it once for the RRG, and not
separately for each member.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:22:27 -0800

Since you are going to make a major decision, I would think listing  
all the possibilities in an email message would be the correct and  
obvious thing to do.

All I am asking is a list of proposals which are being considered.

Dino

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:24:29 +1300

On 2009-11-16 21:01, Michael Menth wrote:

> if NAT66 is an option

Can you define "NAT66" precisely?

The only precise proposal I am aware of is
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mrw-behave-nat66
(which I should stress is *not* an IETF WG document,
despite its name). That is a stateless, non-reversible
NAT.

   Brian

---

From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:59:54 +0100

Hi Brian,

> Can you define "NAT66" precisely?
We need the a box that translates local IPv6 addresses into global IPv6 
addresses using a stateless NAT using a one-to-one reversible mapping 
algorithm for single-homed edge networks. That is precisely what NAT66 
as described in the draft does according to our understanding.

Regards,

    Michael

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:12:11 -0500

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Michael Menth
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> algorithm for single-homed edge networks. That is precisely what NAT66 as
> described in the draft does according to our understanding.

Hi Michael,

Doesn't that leave you with all the DNS issues that make changing ISPs
so problematic with IPv4 PA addresses?

What about multihomed edge networks?

Regards,
Bill Herrin

---

From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:44:03 +0100

Hi Bill,

> What about multihomed edge networks?
In case of multihomed edge networks, there is a 1:n mapping from IDs (or 
unique local address) to global routing locators (or RLOCs in general, 
or global addresses). To be backwards-compatible with the classic IPv6 
Internet, return packets of a connection should use the same global 
addresses. GLI-Split proposes two different features that achieve this. 
One is a stateful NAT for communication with classic IPv6 hosts inside a 
GLI-domain, the other is based on IPv6 extension headers for 
communication with upgraded GLI-hosts. I think that it touches a 
fundamental problem of  Loc/ID split solutions based on address 
rewriting when hosts have only a single local address but their edge 
network is multhomed to the outside world.

Regards,

    Michael

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:52:20 +1300

> as described in the draft does according to our understanding.

Clarification: when I say 'reversible', I mean that the translation
is reversible before the packet is delivered to the transport layer at
the remote end (as in 8+8/ILNP or SHIM6).

Obviously, any NAT has to perform its local mapping in both directions,
but tha's not what I meant.

   Brian

---

From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:32:51 -0500

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Michael Menth
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> unique local address) to global routing locators (or RLOCs in general, or
> global addresses). To be backwards-compatible with the classic IPv6
> addresses. GLI-Split proposes two different features that achieve this. One
> is a stateful NAT for communication with classic IPv6 hosts inside a
> GLI-domain, the other is based on IPv6 extension headers for communication
> with upgraded GLI-hosts.

Hi Michael,

You have essentially the same problem when both edge networks are
multihomed and talking to each other, not just when you're trying to
talk to the legacy Internet. Then you have to deal with
application-level DNS problems trying to deal with multiple candidate
addresses some of which might not represent functional paths at the
moment...

>  I think that it touches a fundamental problem of
>  Loc/ID split solutions based on address rewriting when hosts have only a
> single local address but their edge network is multhomed to the outside
> world.

Right.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

---

From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:40:07 +0100

Hi Brian,

> the remote end (as in 8+8/ILNP or SHIM6).
Ok, yes, we assume that feature in upgraded hosts, but not in classic 
IPv6 host that may also be accommodated in a GLI domain.

> but tha's not what I meant.
That was the meaning of "reversible" in the NAT66-mrw doc.

Regards,

    Michael

---

From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:42:25 +0100

> addresses some of which might not represent functional paths at the
Yes, it's the same problem on both sides. Upgraded host would solve that 
problem, in the meantime, gateways could fix it using the technique 
pointed out earlier.

Regards,

    Michael

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:54:36 -0800

On Nov 15, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:

>> all under consideration.  Obviously some of these are dormant and  
>> if the proponents choose not to submit text towards the  
>> recommendation document, we can consider them dead.
>>
>> Tony
>

to further clarify:

1/ since we made this final call for proposals and give it one-month  
of time, we do mean that whoever wants his/her proposal to be  
considered please raise hand one more time.

2/ I will collect a list of all the hands raised since last Friday,  
hopefully in next couple days and put on the RRG wiki page

Lixia

>>>> Here is the plan and schedule for the recommendation process as  
>>>> we discussed at the Friday meeting:

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:56:16 -0800

Hi Bill,

as Tony already answered, RRG is looking for proposed solutions that  
can solve routing scalability problem.

Lixia

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:04:43 -0800

> All I am asking is a list of proposals which are being considered.

that is a fair request.
I think wiki page is a better medium than email (can be updated, and  
easier to find than digging through tons of email)

as I said, will get the list collected asap

Lixia

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:09:52 -0800

> easier to find than digging through tons of email)

Thanks, a wiki is reasonable.

Dino

>>> Sorry, digging all of that up is a bit of work.  Again, it's  
>>> pretty straightforward from the Wiki.  What's the question behind  
>>> the question?
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>
>

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:20:38 +0800

> but tha's not what I meant.

I am concerned about requiring the remote site to be able to reverse the
sender's mappings.  For that to be the case, everyone must be able to
run the same algorithm for translation, and changing it will be very
very difficult, at least as difficult as changing IP.

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:33:51 -0800

> considered please raise hand one more time.

let me clarify my own email: by "raising hand one more time", one does  
need to submit a document as input into the consideration, to describe  
the proposed solution, and explain how it solves the routing  
scalability problem.
(one can point to previous submitted writing)

this document can then be used in the next contrasting and comparison  
phase.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:27:44 +0100

> hopefully in next couple days and put on the RRG wiki page

I would just ask, Lixia, that you let us know when you've done this and 
provide a URL to the wiki, as I am URL challenged.

Eliot

---

From: Juan Jose Adan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:59:14 +0100

Lixia:

Three years ago I prepared a draft that I sent to the IETF on
"Tunneled Inter-domain Routing (TIDR)". I would like you to
include it in the RRG Wiki as another proposal to solve the
routing scalability problem. The draft describes a way to
enrich BGP protocol for distributing the identifier-to-locator
mapping.

The draft I submitted to the IETF is located on:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-adan-idr-tidr-01

Here there are some other links that add more information:

--> on scalability of the global BGP table and reducing BGP churn
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ram/current/msg01308.html
[RAM] TIDR using the IDENTIFIERS attribute (19-April-2007)

--> on the different role of transit and non-transit ASes
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/rrg/2007/msg00902.html
[RRG] LISP etc architecture  (20-Sept-2007)

--> on AS-based routing with very fine granularity
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/rrg/2008/msg00716.html
[RRG] yetAnotherProposal: AS-number forwarding  (11-March-2008)

Juanjo

2009/11/17 Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>

>>>> proponents choose not to submit text towards the recommendation document, we
>>>> can consider them dead.
>>>>
>>>> Tony
>>>>
>>>
>> 1/ since we made this final call for proposals and give it one-month of
>> time, we do mean that whoever wants his/her proposal to be considered please
>> raise hand one more time.
>>
>
> let me clarify my own email: by "raising hand one more time", one does need
> to submit a document as input into the consideration, to describe the
> proposed solution, and explain how it solves the routing scalability
> problem.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:04:28 +1300

> very difficult, at least as difficult as changing IP.

To be pedantic, the condition is a little weaker: any given pair
of correspondents must run the same algorithm for translation. But
I agree that it is very tricky, and I think any viable solution
will require e2e signals of some kind. encap/decap is certainly
more robust.

   Brian

---

From: Dae Young KIM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:19:01 +0900

Hi, Lixia,

I'm, in fact, a new comer to this group, and may not be eligible to do this,
but is it possible that you take the file attached as one of the proposals
to be considered and so listed on your wiki page?

I'll subsequently generate a text draft to submit by the due date Dec. 15.

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]> wrote:

> after this date, RRG will have focused discussion on contrasting, comparing
> and critiques of all the candidate proposals.
>
> 2/15/10: ending date for the comparison and critiques; starting date for
> drafting recommendation document.
>
>  submission by 17:00 PST (01:00 UTC), upload using IETF ID Submission Tool.
>
> getting drafted during the comparison study and we can spend these two weeks
> mostly for structuring the document.
>
> RRG co-chairs

-- 
Regards,

DY
http://cnu.kr/~dykim

---

From: Patrick Frejborg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:32:30 +0200

Hi Lixia,

I raise my hand and ask kindly the RRG team to consider and evaluate
the hierarchical IPv4 framework,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-frejborg-hipv4-04

Two new appendixes has been added, appendix B is about what can be
done to reduce the impact of multi-homing on the DFZ and appendix C is
a corner use case that could be solved by supporting, or not
supporting, NAT in the architecture. Both are depending upon what kind
of policies IETF, the RIRs and the service providers are keen to have.

-- patte