Subject: Re: [rrg] RRG recommendation

From: "Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:52:24 +0200

I would find it useful if the forthcoming rrg recommendation could in
addition to the NAT issue document:

- limitations of BGP based scalability (not only the hypothec necessity
for loc/id separation, but more of the factual issues. After two years
of research and work in RRG we should be in a position to quantify the
RFC4984 statements in a non speculative way.) 
- is the shortest path routing the only acceptable solution (and why if
that is the case)

Best regards
Hannu

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:44:06 +1300

> RFC4984 statements in a non speculative way.) 

There are two problems with this that I can see immediately:

1. Router vendors are presumably still reluctant to go into
great detail about their view of technical limitations and
technology roadmaps, as they were several years ago.

2. The past is not a good predictor of the future in this area.
(If it was, I'd be suggesting that we just extrapolate from
the graphs I drew in my CCR paper. But that would be highly
dangerous.)

> - is the shortest path routing the only acceptable solution (and why if

That seems to be a question about the accepatble tradeoff, i.e. how
many % of extra hops (as a proxy for extra latency) are we willing
to trade for how much increase in the number of routable prefixes.

   Brian