Subject: Re Possible IAB workshop on routing and addressing participants?

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:03:53 +0200

David Meyer wrote:

>  	The IAB is considering holding a routing and addressing
>  	workshop, perhaps in the fall 2006 time frame (see the
>  	draft invite below). We're in the process of collecting
>  	potential participants, so please pass along any the
>  	names of folks that that you think would be productive
>  	participants.

I would be interested in participating, time and money permitting,  
but productiveness is of course in the eye of the beholder. I do have  
a few remarks about the text of the draft invite, though. Hope you  
don't mind...

Mostly, I'm afraid that considering such a wide assortment of  
problems may prevent any one problem from getting the attention that  
it deserves. Also, thinking about these problems is in very different  
stages. For instance, we've talked for _years_ about multihoming, and  
the shim6 wg is now trying to come up with a solution. It's true that  
the general opinion about this solution isn't entirely favorable, but  
would it do much good to go through all of this again now that shim6  
is firmly on track but doesn't have any concrete results yet? The  
opposite is true of:

>  		- Limited capability to protect against either
>  		  the spoofing of individual host IP addresses or
>  		  entire IP address blocks

[I'm assuming in data packets as opposed to in routing]

Unless I really don't follow the right mailing lists (always  
possible, there are only 24 hours in the day after all) nobody has  
seriously tried to actually solve this issue, all efforts have been  
about detecting/tracing the offending packets.

I do think this is a very worthwhile problem to work on, both because  
it represents a very real problem area in today's internet, and  
because it seems possible to actually accomplish something. (I'm  
thinking along the line of having  routers or midleboxes with  
powerful crypto hardware do proxy IPsec AH verification.) But does it  
have much to do with routing?

>  		- Allow users (small and large) to freely switch
>  		  between providers without substantial service
>  		  interruption

Do we consider renumbering a possibility here, or do we assume stable  
addressing when moving from one ISP to the next?

>  		- Provide better support for mobility and nomadicity

Again: in routing?

>  		- Define scalability requirements for a next
>  		  generation routing system

Is it a useful exercise to try to define _how_ scalable the routing  
system needs to be exactly? It has to be as scalable as possible. But  
even if we come up with some magic routing system that scales O(1) we  
still have to put all those millions or billions of routes into FIBs  
which stops being fun when you get the electricity bill.

My thinking about what needs to happen with inter-domain routing is  
that we can learn a lot from intra-AS behavior of BGP (iBGP). The  
routers at the edge of the AS aggregate information, and transmit it  
without modification to other routers in the AS over iBGP. So iBGP  
takes care of distributing prefix information, and he actual path  
selection is left up to other mechanisms more suitable for that task,  
i.e., generally a link state protocol such as OSPF or IS-IS. If we  
can extend this model to an area larger than a single AS we can  
drastically increase inter-domain routing performance, within that  
area at least. Obviously the size of the area where link state (like)  
decision making happens needs to be smaller than the entire internet.

(I was working up to a rant about what's wrong with BGP but I'll  
forego boring you with that in my first message and leave it as an  
exercise for the reader.)

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

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 06:59:18 -0700

> exercise for the reader.)

	Iljitsch,

	Thanks for the input (much appreciated). I'll fold it
	into the materials I have.

	Dave

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:33:29 +0200

Hi David,

We have a new project, funded by the European Commission, which will
officially start next July 1st, working on this.

The project is called RiNG (Routing in Next Generation).

The project partners include some well known people in IETF, such as Geoff
Huston, Kurtis, Marcelo Bagnulo, Pekka Savola, Tim Chown, Stig Venaas,
Iljitsch and myself.

Obviously we will be very interesting in taking a very active part on this
work and we can make very strong effort, so if there is any way we can get
involved, in addition to participating in the workshop itself, we will be
very happy to know ASAP and make sure to coordinate our agendas so we don't
miss anything.

I've included below a short abstract of the project.

Regards,
Jordi

The goal of RiNG is to support the coordination, study and analysis of
routing protocols on the Internet and to determine and understand the
challenges ahead, considering the current and future expected Internet
growth, leading to proposals for novel approaches towards the evolution of
routing.

Towards this end the project comprises an expert group, which will be open
to the participation of other experts by means of meetings and other
collaboration means, leading to a broader community ³think tank² on the
topic, forming a kind of ³Routing Cluster², including not only experts from
other relevant IST projects, but also other international related
activities.

The project will analyze and keep track of the state of the art in
standardization and policy, survey the users and service providers, and
propose further alternative related research and innovation strategies to
address the challenges.

By means of the different activities, the project will seek to foster,
increase and support European participation in the related
pre-standardization, standardization and policy process, dissemination of
the results and monitor those developments.

The project proposed research and innovation strategies, most probably, will
require further standardization and policy-making, so the project will need
to find a community consensus, for the development and implementation of the
project results (by means external to the project).

Consequently, the project objectives are:

1.    Coordinate a community ³think tank² on routing aspects (Routing
Cluster), providing operational support for the organization of open working
meetings and other collaboration tools, such as an email exploder and web
site.

2.    Surveying both ISP and user (site) requirements for routing in the
next generation of networks.

3.    Analyze the related state of the art in standardization and policy
versus the user/ISP perceived requirements.

4.    Development of research and innovation strategies for inter-domain
routing evolution.

5.    Disseminate the project and related results, including the relevant
standardization and policy activities.

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 07:38:21 -0700

Hey Jordi,

> The project is called RiNG (Routing in Next Generation).

	Kurtis mentioned this.

> I've included below a short abstract of the project.

	Thanks!

	--dmm