Subject: [rrg] ILNP cannot provide scalable routing benefits for IPv4

From: Ran Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:56:27 -0400

Robin,

  I find your persistence and posting volume astonishing,
particularly given the paucity of actual understanding of
the Internet Architecture and Internet Engineering evident
in those notes.  A possible future endeavour that one might
consider is signal processing, a field where the distinction 
between signal and noise is crucial.

  However, I'm not here to run a tutorial, and MANY people 
active in the Routing RG have asked me to ignore all of your 
postings, so I'll be very brief today.  

Earlier, Robin Whittle wrote:
> I have raised this critique several times and AFAIK you have
> never responded to it.

Au contraire.  I have responded to you from time to time, 
both in detail and (more recently) briefly, both on list and 
off list.  One can only believe that either you did not read 
those notes or you did not understand those notes. 

> Ran objects to the Core-Edge Elimination vs. Core-Edge
> Separation dichotomy, 

Correct.  Some number of other folks take the same view
that I do.

> but has never given detailed arguments against it.

Untrue.  

Several people, including me, have explained why those words are 
neither helpful nor clear, both on-list and off-list.  Robin either 
disagrees with or doesn't understand those explanations.

Yours,

Ran

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 23:42:36 +1000

Short version:  Ran does not answer the critique.  He asserts that he
                has already responded to the critique, without giving
                any references to the list messages where he
                supposedly did so.

                I ask him again to address the critique that ILNP and
                other CEE architectures require at least 3 times the
                address usage of current arrangements, or of CES
                architectures, for multihomed end-user networks -
                making ILNP and other CEE architectures entirely
                unsuitable for widespread adoption for IPv4.

Hi Ran,

> postings, so I'll be very brief today.  

Ran, I think that what you wrote in this message is pure noise.  I
find it extraordinary that anyone would write in such an erroneous,
avoidant and unreferenced manner in a professional mailing list.

> those notes or you did not understand those notes. 

Where on the list did you respond to this critique?  I don't recall
any such response.

> Correct.  Some number of other folks take the same view

Yes - and none of them have explained their objections either.

> disagrees with or doesn't understand those explanations.

Please cite the list messages you refer to.  I don't recall anyone
arguing their case in any substantial fashion.

Please explain exactly how ILNP would work with IPv4, considering you
have only 32 bits to use - such as 16 bits for Locator and 16 bits
for Identifier.

Then, please address my critique about how ILNP or any of the other
CEE (Locator / Identifier Separation) architecture can provide
scalable routing benefits for IPv4 when, for instance, an end-user
network with a /20 prefix requires this set of 4096 IPv4 addresses,
and further sets of 4096 addresses from each of its two or more
upstream ISPs.   This will chew address space at least 3 times faster
than with current techniques.  CES architectures such as LISP, Ivip
and IRON-RANGER have no such problems.

  - Robin

---

From: Paul Jakma <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:56:29 +0200 (CEST)

> Yes - and none of them have explained their objections either.

Perhaps, rather than the rest of the world owing you an explanation, 
it was instead incumbent on you to explain why these terms are 
useful. You're never going to persuade people by trying to browbeat 
them into using your terms. If people don't seem to be interested in 
your terms, get over it and move on. Deluging people with email does 
not help.

>From a previous email of mine:

  I think I'll stick with with "map-and-encap" and "rewriting".

I happen find those terms are more descriptive and to have much wider 
"currency". Perhaps others too, judging by the chairs draft.

Try applying Postel's principle in your personal communications.

I'm not interested in a prolonged discussion on this. :)

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	[email-masked]	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Fundamentally, there may be no basis for anything.

---

From: Toni Stoev <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:09:02 +0300

> between signal and noise is crucial.
...

Ran, Robin,

The Internet architecture is quite an imperfect one. So paucity of actual understanding of it is actually saving of mind.
One might consider contributing to continuation of this architecture or involving in invention of a more perfect one.

Toni

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 00:16:50 +1000

Hi Paul,

In "Re: [rrg] ILNP cannot provide scalable routing benefits for IPv4"
you wrote, in part:

> Perhaps, rather than the rest of the world owing you an
> explanation, it was instead incumbent on you to explain why these
> terms are useful.

I have done so in several messages, including this one (2010-03-11),
which links to some earlier messages:

   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06250.html

  - Robin

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:28:22 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ran Atkinson
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 5:56 AM
> To: IRTF Routing RG
> Subject: [rrg] ILNP cannot provide scalable routing benefits for IPv4
> 
> 
> Robin,
> 

This comment strikes me as borderline disrespectful. It
is easy to brand someone else as a heretic in order to
avoid discussion when the ball is bouncing your way, but
IMHO not appropriate for a community that is based on
mutual respect.

Fred
[email-masked]

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

---

From: Paul Jakma <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:49:26 +0200 (CEST)

>   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06250.html

Oh, as per private mail, I respect your demonstrable ability to 
process information and grapple with detail. Just sometimes "less is 
more" when it comes to communication. ;)

No disrespect was intended.

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	[email-masked]	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Future looks spotty.  You will spill soup in late evening.

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:27:57 +1000

Hi Paul,

You wrote:

> Oh, as per private mail, I respect your demonstrable ability to process
> information and grapple with detail. Just sometimes "less is more" when
> it comes to communication. ;)
> 

In a field as complex and important as scalable routing, I think it
is contradictory to expect someone to write briefly enough to fit in
with one or more person's limited interests, limited time etc. while
also expecting them to properly argue the case for their beliefs.

I am writing as briefly as I can, while adequately addressing the
many issues.  I don't assume everyone has the time or interest to
read this.  Sometimes, when I try to state something briefly, there
are misunderstandings, objections and requests for more details -
such as your assumption I hadn't argued the case for the CEE/CES
distinction.

I frequently provide a "Short version" at the start, and refer to
previous messages so I don't need to restate things at length.

When I started the thread (msg06473) I referenced (msg06250) - but
did not mention that this concerned why the CEE / CES distinction is
meaningful and useful.  I sometimes provide the full links and titles
of previous messages, but I was trying to be brief!  In the 4th
message in this thread, you assumed I had never explained my
arguments.  I should add "see (msg06250)" every time I mention the
CEE/CES distinction.

  - Robin