Subject: [rrg] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-01.txt

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:55:25 -0800

FYI, next rev.

Tony

|-----Original Message-----
|From: [email-masked] 
|[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
[email-masked]
|Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 11:00 AM
|To: [email-masked]
|Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-01.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-01.txt
|	Pages		: 15
|	Date		: 2009-2-27
|	
|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 reports 
|the Routing    Research Group's prelimnary findings from its 
|efforts towards
|   developing a recommendation for a scalable 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-recommendation-01.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: Patrick Frejborg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:39:03 +0200

I'm little bit concerned about this approach, for example my proposal
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-frejborg-hipv4-00
will fit into (among other strategies)
3.3.5.  Strategy E
   Make no routing architecture changes.

I'm not proposing any changes to the current routing architecture,
instead proposing changes to current disciplines and by adding some
components we could solve this issue.
We have already a hierarchial routing architecture. IGP have one or
two levels and then you achieve further hierarchy by adding BGP on
top. So adding a forth or fifth level to the current routing
architecture will not solve the problem, it will only become more
complicated to implement and maintain.

IMHO, the root cause to the situation we are in is the flat numbering
schema - if we don't deal with that problem now we have to deal with
it in the future.

The current routing architecture is superior, I rather leave that
untouched and go after the flat numbering schema - almost everything
else should be modified but not the routing architecture.

-- patte

2009/2/28 Tony Li <[email-masked]>:
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
>
>