Subject: [rrg] Another Routing RG Straw Poll

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 14:39:33 -0400

This is another straw poll for the IRTF Routing RG.

There are 4 statements below.  IRTF Routing RG members
are free to vote on each.  This poll ends 7 days from the 
date/time stamp on this email.

Votes are EITHER "Yes" which means "I can tolerate this
statement, even if the wording is not ideal"   XOR 
"No" which means I cannot tolerate this statement and 
disagree with it.

Each statement should be evaluated by itself, 
based ONLY on the words below within each statement.  

I will NOT be modifying the statement wording during this poll.

(1) 	"The Internet continuing down the current architectural path,
  	whereby site multi-homing increases the size/entropy of      	
	the DFZ RIB/FIB, is not believed to be scalable or viable."

(2)	"The RG has rough consensus that separating identity from 
	location is desirable and technically feasible.  However, 
	the RG does NOT have consensus on the best engineering 
	approach to such an identity/location split."
	
(3) 	"The RG has consensus that the Internet needs to support
	multi-homing in a manner that scales well and does not have
	prohibitive costs."

(4)	"Any IETF solution to Internet scaling has to not only support
	multi-homing, but address the real-world constraints of the 
	end customers (large and small)."

Doodle URL for this poll:
	<http://www.doodle.com/z5s9yq8kt73eua9t>

(I'll vote formally, but I believe all 4 statements are valid.)

Thanks,

Ran
[email-masked]

PS:  I'm obliged to Scott B, Noel C, Joel H, & Eliot L for their inputs
about candidate statements to poll, but they ought not be blamed if
one dislikes how the 4 statements above were worded or what a given
statement says.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 15:24:27 -0400

Hello;

> I will NOT be modifying the statement wording during this poll.

That's fine, but I will point out that, in order

- there is one statement of belief, where who is doing the believing  
is not specified.
- there are 2 statements about RG consensus (or not)
- there is one statement of fact (or not) and

so they should not be compared against each other.

Also, I do not think that #1 is well posed as written, and "voted"  
against it, even though I have no doubt
that there are people who believe it, because I am also sure that  
there are people who do not believe it.

Regards
Marshall

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

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 15:49:53 -0400

On 17  May 2010, at 15:24 , Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> That's fine, but ...

It is simply a matter of practicality.  If the statements
are modified in the middle of the poll, then it is impossible
to know how folks who voted before the modification feel
about the revised statement.

> - there is one statement of belief, where who is doing the believing is not specified.

They are all statements of belief (or disbelief) by the individual voting.
Whoever votes YES believes in the statement.
Folks who vote NO do not believe in the statement.

> - there are 2 statements about RG consensus (or not)

It is a vote about the idea, not about the existence of consensus.

People who vote YES agree with the statement's idea, 
while those who disagree with the statement vote NO.  

(At the end, one hopes it will be clear whether the
"consensus" part of the statement was true or false. :-)

> - there is one statement of fact (or not) and

They are all opinion/belief, as near as I can tell.

(I will be startled if this group can agree unanimously
on anything, including whether the Sun will rise tomorrow. :-)

> so they should not be compared against each other.

Agree.  Each should be voted on individually.

> Also, I do not think that #1 is well posed as written, and "voted" against it, even though I have no doubt
> that there are people who believe it, because I am also sure that there are people who do not believe it.

One should vote how one chooses to.   :-)

However, whether the RG had a unanimous opinion wasn't 
really the question on the table.  The RG does not have
a unanimous opinion about anything, AFAICT.

The question was whether the voter personally agreed 
with the idea in the statement (or disagreed),
just as with my prior straw poll.

Cheers,

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 16:09:01 -0400

> "No" which means I cannot tolerate this statement and 

Ran, since you put it that way, I believe the first two don't just have
editorial problems, they are misleading.

> 	the DFZ RIB/FIB, is not believed to be scalable or viable."

Multihoming itself isn't the problem, and the increase in RIB/FIB
rate*state might only be an increment, depending on how multihoming is
used.  (I won't suggest text changes.)

> 	approach to such an identity/location split."

I have a problem with the last sentence.  There are multiple
identification functions that depend on location-related information.
It's a set of problems, not just a problem.  Some people still think
there is a particular loc/id separation problem that has to be solved
and that a particular technology will solve "it".  A major reason for
that is that we claimed that for years.  Now that we know better, we
need to be very careful how we phrase our statements in order to
dissuade people from that (wrong) idea and don't mislead them.

See you ... Scott

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 22:10:37 +0200

Ran,

I think this is a good poll, and I would hope others who have 
participated in this endeavor would take a few minutes to register their 
views.  I have.

Eliot

On 5/17/10 8:39 PM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> PS:  I'm obliged to Scott B, Noel C, Joel H,&  Eliot L for their inputs

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 17:19:08 -0400

See my comments inline.
Heiner

-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- 
Von: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
An: IRTF Routing RG <[email-masked]>
Verschickt: Mo., 17. Mai. 2010, 20:39
Thema: [rrg] Another Routing RG Straw Poll

(1)     "The Internet continuing down the current architectural path,
    whereby site multi-homing increases the size/entropy of         
    the DFZ RIB/FIB, is not believed to be scalable or viable."
Right.Nor does it match what other routing applications demonstrate meanwhile (-->Google route planner, e.g.)

This is missleading. There are solutions A, B, C rather than good, better, best id/loc-split solutions.

(3)     "The RG has consensus that the Internet needs to support
    multi-homing in a manner that scales well and does not have
    prohibitive costs."
The internet needs to have a networking layer (=routing protocol) that enables multipath in
 forward direction and also multipath in backward direction so that  traffic load handling can be performed.
 Multi-homing is just a special case of multipath forwarding.

(4) "Any IETF solution to Internet scaling has to not only support
    multi-homing, but address the real-world constraints of the 
    end customers (large and small)."
If you mean by addressing the real-world constraints "must be DV-based" then I disagree. Otherwise it is a trivial requirement.

Thanks,

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 18:05:54 -0400

> dissuade people from that (wrong) idea and don't mislead them.

I have questions on the first sentence of the second question. For the first sentence, does "desirable" mean "worth the cost, having fully understood what the costs are (for each approach, or at least for some approach)", or does it mean "in an abstract sense, ignoring costs, all else being equal, a good idea"?

Also, does "consensus that separating identity from location is desirable" necessarily imply consensus on what it means to separate identity from location? My guess is no, based on my next point.

The second sentence I don't have any problem with: If we are saying "we don't have consensus on how to separate Identity from Location", then IMHO it is perfectly reasonable that this also means, or is even caused by, a lack of consensus on precisely what the problem is. 

Ross

PS: to me, the other three questions seem well enough formed that I have no trouble figuring out how I would myself vote on them.

---

From: Toni Stoev <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 01:21:19 +0300

>  Multi-homing is just a special case of multipath forwarding.

Heiner, can you back this statement with arguments?

Toni

---

From: Shane Amante <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 18:28:55 -0600

Ross,

> The second sentence I don't have any problem with: If we are saying "we don't have consensus on how to separate Identity from Location", then IMHO it is perfectly reasonable that this also means, o…

Related to the last half of the above paragraph, are you saying that RFC 4984 is not a sufficient "problem statement"?  If so, why?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4984

-shane

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 00:54:53 -0400

>> The second sentence I don't have any problem with: If we are saying 
>> "we don't have consensus on how to separate Identity from Location",
>> then IMHO it is perfectly reasonable that this also means, or is even
>> caused by, a lack of consensus on precisely what the problem is. 
>
> Related to the last half of the above paragraph, are you saying
> that RFC 4984 is not a sufficient "problem statement"?  If so, why?

In deciding how to vote on the four questions, each of us need to figure out whether we agree with the statements. The one statement that I haven't decided on is "The RG has rough consensus that separating identity from location is desirable and technically feasible." One problem is that I don't think that there is precise enough agreement on what this means for the apparent consensus (if there is one) to mean much. Also, it is not clear to me whether the statement will be interpreted as "desirable given a complete and thorough understanding of the costs and implications", or whether the statement means "generally desirable, but without precise consideration of the costs and implications". 

I agree with the observation that "... However, the RG does NOT have consensus on the best engineering approach to such an identity/location split", and wonder whether this implies that I should not be concerned with the fact that I don't think that we agree on what precisely an ID/LOC split is. 

I think that RFC4984 is good enough to motivate work that is leading to increased understanding of what is possible in routing and addressing, and associated costs and implications. I also think that RFC4984 is a sufficiently accurate reflection of the discussion that occurred during the Amsterdam routing and addressing workshop. We know more now. Hopefully we will know still more in six months or a year. 

Ross

---

From: Dae Young KIM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:39:03 +0900

(2) consists of two sentences. What if one disagrees either of the two.

I voted NO to (2) since I don't agree to the first sentence.

-- 

Regards,
DY

---

From: Paul Jakma <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:47:49 +0100 (BST)

> 	approach to such an identity/location split."

Are people being invited to agree/disagree on underlying technical 
question, or the social question of whether they believe the RRG has 
consensus on this? (I presume you intended on the technical).

NB: I said yes. That doesn't mean I think the identity split must be 
in the routing architecture though. ;)

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	[email-masked]	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
You look tired.

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 10:55:04 -0400

On 18  May 2010, at 09:47 , Paul Jakma wrote:
> Are people being invited to agree/disagree on underlying technical question,
> or the social question of whether they believe the RRG has consensus on this?
> (I presume you intended on the technical).

The technical question.  

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 09:19:11 -0700

>> (I presume you intended on the technical).

Even more specifically, if there is a consensus of agreement, then the
statement will be included verbatim in our recommendation document as a
point of RG consensus.

Tony

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:32:58 -0400

NB: I said yes. That doesn't mean I think the identity split must be in the routing architecture though. ;) 
 
regards, 
-- Paul Jakma [email-masked] 
So did I although I  not only criticize the current architectural path as by
1)     "The Internet continuing down the current architectural path,
    whereby site multi-homing increases the size/entropy of         
    the DFZ RIB/FIB, is not believed to be scalable or viable."

but also the clinging to this school of thought (DV, the prefix building bliss, the NSAP/ICD/DCC/etc-hierarchical view from 20 years ago,...) which caused the problem
and which won't get us any further. 

...address the real-world constraints of the 
    end customers (large and small)
Is "Enforcing to have an non-mobile home-agent" instead of "potentially enabling ALL users to be mobile" such a real-world constraint of the end customer
(large and small) ?

Heiner

Heiner

-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- 
Von: Paul Jakma <[email-masked]>
An: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Cc: IRTF Routing RG <[email-masked]>
Verschickt: Di., 18. Mai. 2010, 15:47
Thema: Re: [rrg] Another Routing RG Straw Poll

 
>   approach to such an identity/location split." 
 
Are people being invited to agree/disagree on underlying technical question, or the social question of whether they believe the RRG has consensus on this? (I presume you intended on the technical). 
 
NB: I said yes. That doesn't mean I think the identity split must be in the routing architecture though. ;) 
 
regards, 
-- Paul Jakma  [email-masked]  Key ID: 64A2FF6A 
Fortune: 
You look tired. 
_______________________________________________ 
rrg mailing list 
[email-masked] 
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 15:16:33 -0700

> 	approach to such an identity/location split."

Personally, I don't think the RRG has a sufficient consensus on what the terms mean, which undermines any semblance of consensus on solutions. We are agree that a locator and an identifier aren't the same thing, and that a locator has something to do with routing. In some solutions, the locator gets us to an edge network, while in others it gets us to a LAN. Depending on the solution, an identifier identifies an edge network, a network layer interface, a system that has one or more network layer interfaces, a session, or an application. I think we all agree that since they are not the same it should be possible to separate them, but absent a consensus on what they are, I don't see how we ever come to an agreement on how to split them.

---

From: Dae Young KIM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 10:34:00 +0900

Fred,

IMHO, our dilemma does not end with not knowing how to split them. Our
dilemma would also be even not knowing whether split is a right thing
or not in the first place.

To me, the problem in the beginning was stated in a wrong way. The
problem is not that the IP address is overloaded with semantics.The
problem is that the IP address names the interface, not the node.

To me, it's all right we have only one number, i.e., the IP address,
as long as it would be redefined and used to name (address) directly
the node instead. To me, I won't need a separate locator if it would
name (address) the interface, for it is unnecessarily duplicate and
redundant to the address one layer below (e.g. MAC address) that
already names/identifies the other tip end of the bar (interface or
PoA).

And if the locator should mean the prefix for the whole domain, why
not then use AS# instead?

The problem with the inter-domain routing (IDR) is to stretch the
addresses belonging to the inside of domains out into the
inter-domains and so IDR operates on these foreign addresses.
Addresses for intra-domain routing an IDR should be decoupled (or
orthogonal) and IDR should operate on its own address set, e.g., AS#
or domain address(as Bod Hinden coined in RFC 1955).

I'm not sure how to correctly articulate my statement, and also not
sure whether I could successfully defend on the ensuing inevitable
consequences on the routing, both intra- and inter-domain. But, there
surely should be a way out. There are a lot of smart engineers out
there.

I've tried to articulate my thinking in my recent talk to a group of
network researchers in Tokyo. You might want to have a look at my
slides being attached and either like it a bit or give me your candid
assessment about what a nonsense it is.

(The game is apparently completely over, but why not look back whether
we took the right path?)

-- 

Regards,
DY