Subject: Re: [rrg] ILNP

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 07:54:30 -0400

On 01  Apr 2010, at 01:01 , Dae Young KIM wrote:
> Perhaps, I'm asking questions everybody else already knows, but let me
> ask theses:
> 
>   1) So, there's nothing like PoA address in ILNP, which, in fact, is
> a good thing. Is my understanding correct?

>   2) How does your intra-domain routing work? Does it still work on
> subnet IDs, aka, Locators, inside a domain? How about within a subnet?
> ... like... your node ID will be mapped to a MAC address within the
> sub-net and the sub-net will take care of the rest....?

>   3) Both ID and Locator are globally unique in your model, aren't they?

All of these questions are answered in the existing available
documents.  Please start by reading those documents.

If there are still questions after you have read the documents, 
then please let me know.

Thanks,

Ran

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 23:56:34 +1100

DY,

Can you explain what you mean by "PoA" address?  Googling this leads
me only to a messages you wrote on this list.

Ran,

Are you really so busy as not to be able to help someone who is keen
to understand your proposal?

> If there are still questions after you have read the documents, 

If someone asked me questions about my proposal, I would answer them
and help them understand why I designed my proposal the way I did.

You could have answered DY's questions 1 and 3 with a "yes" or a
"no".  I assume you know what "PoA" address is, otherwise you
wouldn't be confident the answer lies in your documents.

The available documents at your site:

  http://ilnp.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/

consists of 3 talks from 2008, 4 Internet Drafts and 10 papers.  Do
you expect DY or anyone else interested in ILNP to read through all
of these until they find out something you could clarify with just a
few words or sentences?

Instead of linking to the IETF latest versions of your IDs, you have
local text files - which don't print out as nicely as the IETF
versions:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rja-ilnp-intro-03
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rja-ilnp-dns-03
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rja-ilnp-nonce-02
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rja-ilnp-icmp-01

One of your text files - draft-rja-ilnp-dns-02 - is not the latest
version.

  - Robin

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:37:40 -0400

On 01  Apr 2010, at 08:56, someone wrote:
> consists of 3 talks from 2008, 4 Internet Drafts and 10 papers.  
> Do you expect ... anyone ... interested in ILNP to read through
> all of these ...

It seems entirely reasonable to expect that participants in the 
RRG would at least read the applicable Internet-Drafts first.
I did that for multiple proposals.  Most other Routing RG folks 
also did that for multiple proposals.  This is common practice
and normal expectation in the IRTF (and for that matter, in the 
IETF also).

It isn't difficult or especially time consuming to scan through
viewgraphs, so many people would choose to do that as a fast way
to learn the basics of any proposal.  Often having graphics
helps makes ideas more clear.

IRTF Routing RG time, including ILNP, is not part of my job,
unlike for some people here.  Regrettably that really does 
mean that my time available for RRG is limited.

Yours,

Ran

PS:  I'll try to get my colleague to update the ILNP project
     web site, but that could take several days to happen...

---

From: Dae Young KIM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 09:24:09 +0900

Hi, Robin,

PoA: Point of Attachment, aka, interface.

The current IP addresses name the interface(PoA), not the node(host/router).

It seems ILNP proposes to

   - name the node by ID, and
   - name the subnet by Locator.

So, with ILNP, neither name the interface, which I buy the most.

Regards,
DY

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 12:37 AM, RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
>

---

From: Dae Young KIM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 09:30:23 +0900

Ran,

Have you ever imagine this case?:

  - You think you made a complete presentation/document so that there
are no more uncertainty.

  - Others will still find difficulty or further curiosity in details
of some part of your material.

The material might be perfect from your perspective since the whole
idea is in your brain. I'm wondering whether the same brain image
could have reloaded to those of others intact. Even so, there might be
points you forgot/did not think important/ to elaborate more.

Of course, I read your material, still, being so dumber than you are,
I still have questions.

Ran, I like your proposal and try to find more reasons to defend yours
than to destroy it. If you don't mind whether those dumb guys out
there catch up with your smart brain, then let it be.

Regards,
DY

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:43:36 -0700

Hi,

The tone of this is going south in a hurry.  Can we please back up?

Everyone here needs to act professionally and reasonably.  It is not
unreasonable to have to read the draft before commenting.  It is wholly
reasonable for an author to respond to questions from those that have read
the draft.  It is wholly unprofessional to demand an email based tutorial
not having read the basics.

Let's behave ourselves, please.

Regards,
Tony

---

From: Dae Young KIM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 16:44:17 +0900

OK, let's get back to the bottom.

[Point of Attchment]

  In sentence 2, paragraph 1 on page 3, you said:

  s1: “The Locator indicates the subnetwork point of attachment for a node.”

Usually, point of attachment(PoA) is used interchangeably with
interface if I'm not wrong. For example, the following two statements
are usually regarded as the same:

  o An IP address names an interface of a node to a subnetwork.

  o An IP address names a PoA of a node to a subnetwork.

You then say in the subsequent sentence that

  s2: “The Locator names a subnetwork.”

The two statements, s1 and s2, are inconsistent, at least to me. s1
should be removed or rephrased like:

  s1’: “The Locator indicates the subnetwork where a node resides in.”

A further example might be:

  - If your Locator indicates the PoA to a subnetwork, the Locator for
each node in the same subnetwork would be different.

  - However, if your Locator would indicate the subnetwork itself, as
it does now, the Locator would be the same for all nodes in the same
subnetwork.

In essense, I thought that

  - Neither ID nor Locator of ILNP names an interface.
  - ILNP has got rid of the notion/use of PoA numbering.

..which I'd find one of the most significant step you have taken to
fix part of the flaw of the Internet architecture... which I'd take
high.

Regards,
DY

---

From: Dae Young KIM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 16:45:35 +0900

I was referring to your 'draft-rja-ilnp-intro-03.txt.'

Regards,
DY

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 18:57:15 +1100

I am replying to Tony and Ran.

Hi Tony,

> The tone of this is going south in a hurry.  Can we please back up?

What's wrong with "south"?  My wife and live in Australia and she
hails from Houston TX.  I enjoyed visiting the South - Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee and
Arkansas.

> Everyone here needs to act professionally and reasonably.  

I agree.

> It is not unreasonable to have to read the draft before commenting.
> It is wholly reasonable for an author to respond to questions from
> those that have read the draft.

DY (msg06408) had read the drafts and had further questions.  You and
Ran were mistaken to assume he hadn't.

Even if DY hadn't read them, I think Ran should have answered the two
questions which had yes/no answers and pointed out where in his
documents DY could read more about these questions and about any
other questions which involved answers which Ran didn't have time to
answer on the list.

Whether or not DY had read the IDs is only part of the story.  Many
other people are reading this list and I think everyone who writes
should do their best to help those people learn about scalable
routing.  Ran was not at all helpful to DY or anyone else regarding
the answers to DY's questions or which of Ran's documents to read in
order to find the answers.

> It is wholly unprofessional to demand an email based tutorial not
> having read the basics.
>

Neither DY or I made any such demand.  I think DY is being
constructive, professional and appreciative of Ran's proposal.

You and Lixia haven't responded to my critique of some of the
material in your slides from the recent meeting:

  The co-chairs do not understand Ivip and some other architectures
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06373.html

As far as I can see, this indicates that at the time of the meeting,
when you had made your decision about what to recommend, your
understanding of Ivip was incorrect in many important respects and
probably far from complete.  You also classed two direct CEE
architectures, which therefore directly compete with ILNP, in other
categories - such as by dismissing Name Based Sockets as simply a
mapping proposal.

I wrote msg06373 6 days ago and I believe it is a professional,
constructive, part of the RRG discussion.  I know everyone is busy,
but I do not regard it as professional or helpful for you and Lixia
to leave questions such as this unanswered and unacknowledged for so
long.

Ran,

> RRG would at least read the applicable Internet-Drafts first.

Yes, but its a lot of work to read all the IDs and other material for
all the proposals.  I think it is fair enough that people ask
preliminary questions about a proposal in order to decide whether
they should invest in reading all about it.

I did not get the impression from DY's message (msg06402) that he
hadn't read about ILNP already.  He clearly supports your approach
and was asking for clarification and confirmation of questions which
were particularly important to him.

> and normal expectation in the IRTF (and for that matter, in the

I encourage you to comment on the proposals you did read about.

In particular I am keen for you to argue the case for the extra
burdens ILNP and other such Locator / Identifier Separation
architectures (which I and others call "Core-Edge Elimination") place
on all hosts as a worthwhile choice in order to avoid the addition of
new functionality in the network, as is done with CES architectures
including LISP, Ivip and IRON-RANGER.  For further information on
this, please see my messages msg06250 and msg06219.

 - Robin

---

From: Dae Young KIM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 18:09:10 +0900

Hi, Robin,

Thank you for filling the hole I'm responsible for having caused, but
I'd also admit that I was not quite 'professional'.

I failed to attend the meeting, and I've watched the ML and noticed a
wealth of discontent that the decision was by the co-chairs, not
through consensus.

Of course, I'm terribly busy as everyone else is, and my fault was try
to take a shortcut by starting reading first ILNP and others later on.

And it turns out that I like ILNP quite and it was a bit relieving
since the co-chairs must have not done a whole bad job after all, for
otherwise it would be a disaster.

I'd admit that I'm not such an expert on routing as all others in RRG
should be, so need some more elaboration to convince myself that this
should be a good choice.

Well, it seems it is not an educational venue here, and I'll have to
figure out all mysteries I still have on my own.

Regards,
DY