Subject: Re: [rrg] Solution space summary: rejection phase B, C, D, E & F

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:03:17 EST

I propose to reject every strategy which  immediately depends on a  repair 
system :-).

In einer eMail vom 29.12.2008 12:25:09 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

Strategy  C

Despite a decade or two to research such things, no-one  has
come close to devising a routing system which could  serve
the needs of the interdomain routing system, as BGP  does
today, and which could scale to handling the number  of
prefixes we need to solve the routing scaling  problem.
Then start to think. I have send out many mails and no one responded  (unless 
off-list) and tried to really deal with the issues.  

Although we have no clear target, I think there  would be
consensus that the scalable routing solution needs  to
provide multihoming, TE (and I think "portability)  to
at least several hundred million end-user  networks.
No one responded when I said in spite of 300 000 routes two thirds are not  
even considered. Wrt to some destination each router has three sets of adjacent 
 links: those to closer, those to equidistant, those to more remote neighbor  
nodes. I cater for evaluating properly all three sets. My accusation that by 
DV  ( BGP ) only one set can be considered was accepted without any  objection.
 
Furthermore TARA is the only archtecture which can support  multihoming such 
that both the hosts' interests as well as the networks'  interests can be 
supported. 
 
Furthermore TARA has no problem at all if there where several hundred  
million end-user networks. I gave enough proof: see the road network, see  the 
postal service network, see the railway network.
Robin, you was silent too, when I said that It would be absurd to introduce  
user reachability dissemination as to run railway service right.

Since there is no sign of a routing system which  could
scale to this number of advertised prefixes -  including
by souping up BGP in some way - I suggest we should  form
a strong consensus to reject this  strategy.
If you doesn't want to see the signs, I cannot help you.

Further arguments include there being no chance we  could
introduce a new routing system without  prohibitive
disruption, and that some of the most discussed  alternatives
(geographic aggregation) do not respect the  business needs
of ISPs.

One of the LISP  folks pointed me to a critique of "compact
routing":

On Compact Routing for the  Internet
Dmitri Krioukov, kc claffy, Kevin Fall,  Arthur Brady
ACM SIGCOMM CCR, v.37, n.3, p.41-52,  2007
I am very familiar with these Compact Routing documents by these  authors.
Ask them whether they know Kurt Mehlhorns algorithm, published in 1988  !
I am sure they don't. I do not doubt that their observation is correct  
concerning THEIR understanding of hierarchical routing. But this is  not MY 
understanding of hierarchical routing. Ask them why they think  that ANY hierachical 
network would have stretch = 3 ! Ask them what is  the best number of 
hierarchical levels and also why !  I am sure,  their answers will unveil that they 
don't even know what is the real  issue.

which may be relevant in deciding to reject  Strategy C.

Heiner
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg