Subject: [rrg] FW: I-D Action:draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-00.txt

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:54:48 -0800

FYI...

|-----Original Message-----
|From: [email-masked] 
|[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
[email-masked]
|Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 10:30 PM
|To: [email-masked]
|Subject: I-D Action:draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-00.txt 
|
|A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line 
|Internet-Drafts directories.
|
|	Title           : Preliminary Recommendation for a 
|Routing Architecture
|	Author(s)       : T. Li
|	Filename        : draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-00.txt
|	Pages           : 15
|	Date            : 2009-02-14
|
|It is commonly recognized that the Internet routing and addressing
|architecture is facing challenges in scalability, multi-homing, and
|inter-domain traffic engineering.  This document is the Routing
|Research Group's prelimnary recommendation for a new routing
|architecture.
|
|This document is a work in progress.
|
|A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
|http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendati
|on-00.txt
|
|Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
|ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
|
|Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
|implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
|Internet-Draft.
|

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:21:45 EST

In einer eMail vom 24.02.2009 22:05:43 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

As  always, other insights into the problem, discussions of  architectural
conclusions that we can clearly draw and other conceptual  items leading to
an architectural proposal are most welcome.  There's  a lot more than could
be in this document outside of just taxonomy (e.g.,  mental question du jour:
do identifiers need to be globally  unique?).

Earlier I gave two answers to above "question du jour" wrt  strategy  C:
While strategy C (TARA) is not yet completely deployed, IPv4 addresses have  
to be globally unique, but not thereafter.
Globally uniqueness of IPv4 addresses is definitively needed for the  
incremental deployment phase.
The reason: The hereby employed router's view of a well  reduced/sparsed 
internet topology will also consist of non-TARA GRE-tunnels  which interconnect 
isolated TARA subnetworks. The computation of  these GRE-tunnels rely on the 
global uniqueness of IPv4.
 
Having said this, I like to ask the following question du jour:
Does jumping ahead with some particular strategy (e.g. with  LISP/ALT) harm 
all the other potential solutions ?
 
Speaking in favor of strategy C, the answer is " Yes, it harms".
Its objective, to reduce the classic BGP tables continuously, means: From  
some point in time a TARA-router should stop disseminating its own user  
reachabilities. Concurrently any other TARA-router will have to do    what is called 
default-mapping in ALT: it has to advertise reachability with  prefix length 0 
as to attract IP flows from the non-TARA surrounding.
 
Hence, there is a competition with ALT-routers who do the same. Of course,  
by chance,a TARA-router may be in the way to some ALT-router  -- and vice  
versus.
 
Because I think that ANY strategy needs a concept for incremental  
deployability, i.e. might need  that default-mapping mechanism. It is  indeed a pretty 
general and not a ALT-specific mechanism. 
 
IMHO, this aspect should be considered prior voting for  a LISP working group 
in the IETF.
 
So I repeat my question du jour: does LISP/ALT jumping ahead hurt ?
 
Heiner