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

From: "Teco Boot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:14:21 +0100

Hi Tony,

I prefer a tiny but very important adjustment in B1c

Was:
   B1c  Semi-hierarchical locators are administratively assigned.  Local
      reconnection during link state changes is accomplished with
      rerouting instead of renumbering.
Suggestion:
   B1c  Semi-hierarchical locators are administratively or automatically 
      assigned.  Local reconnection during link state changes is 
      accomplished with rerouting instead of renumbering.

My Border Router Discovery Protocol is an example for this adjusted B1c,
there might be more.
I say very important, as it provides basics for multi-homing, ad hoc 
operations, multi-path connections, smarter address selection and make-
before-break with wireless links. And no ingress filter problems.

Only major criticisms 3.3.2.3. #1 applies to B1c, and I have 
problems with the wording. 

Was:
   1.  This strategy is probably not compatible with UDP or TCP though
       B1a/c could be compatible with IPv6's layer 3.  The replacement
       layer-4/5 protocols should also be coaxable to run on top of
       IPv4's layer 3 in the not-yet-upgraded part of the network.

I see no reason why it is not compatible. It must be for obvious reasons.
The problem is automatic renumbering at higher layers and manual configured
addresses. I think this is no showstopper. It is just somewhat difficult 
because legacy.

Suggestion:
   1.  This strategy does probably not provide session continuity for 
       UDP or TCP though
       B1a/c could be compatible with IPv6's layer 3.  The replacement
       layer-4/5 protocols should also be coaxable to run on top of
       IPv4's layer 3 in the not-yet-upgraded part of the network.

My thoughts on strategy A and B in a few words:

           A is hiding problems, B is solving problems.

I know the opinions on A and B preferences, no need to repeat them:-)

Thanks, Teco

|-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
|Van: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] Namens Tony Li
|Verzonden: zaterdag 28 februari 2009 16:55
|Aan: [email-masked]
|Onderwerp: [rrg] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-01.txt
|
|
|
|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: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:47:01 -0700

Hi Teco,

Thanks for your comments and your patience in waiting for me to get back 
to you.

>       accomplished with rerouting instead of renumbering.

Sure.

> I see no reason why it is not compatible. It must be for obvious reasons.

The problem is that the locator would still be part of the 
pseudo-header.  How do you do the checksum calculation if the locator 
selection happens after the packet leaves the transport layer and is to 
be transmitted?

Tony