Subject: [rrg] RG Straw Poll closing very soon

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 13:58:30 -0400

The poll closes in just under 1 hour (from when I write this note).
If anyone has not yet participated and would like to do so, 
PLEASE go do so RIGHT NOW.  As a reminder, the poll URL remains:
	<http://www.doodle.com/z5s9yq8kt73eua9t>

As I write this, there are 31 valid participants, and one
spoilt ballot.  Votes are public, visible via the above URL.

For the record, no one has been censored, although someone
failed in an attempt at humour by entering a spoilt ballot
which s/he herself/himself labelled "Censored by...".

Under IRTF process rules, determination of RG consensus is
the privilege of the RG chairs.  

So, purely as an observation, not a consensus determination,
most current (13:52 EDT, 24th May 2010) participants support
all 4 statements.  
	Statement 1 currently has (19/31 or ~61%) agreed.  
	Statement 2 currently has (25/31 or ~81%) agreed.
	Statement 3 currently has (31/31 or 100%) agreed.
	Statement 4 currently has (30/31 or ~97%) agreed.

Personally, I am encouraged by all this.

Yours,

Ran

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 14:04:47 -0700

Hi all,

It's now considerably after the official close of this poll.

As of this writing, there were 33 responses, of which 1 is clearly invalid.
That leaves us with 32 valid responses.

Statement 1 has (20/32) 65.6% agreement.
Statement 2 has (26/32) 81% agreement.
Statement 3 has (32/32) 100% agreement.
Statement 4 has (31/32) 97% agreement.

All of these clearly represent rough consensus.  However, I would be happier
if Statement 1 had a slightly more decisive consensus.  Therefore, I'd like
to ask the group to continue to discuss, refine, and repeat the poll on a
revised version of Statement 1.  I suspect that simple wordsmithing will
suffice.

The other 3 statements will show up in the next rev of the document.

Regards,
Tony

On 5/24/10 10:58 AM, "RJ Atkinson" <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 12:06:46 +1000

Short version:  I support statements 1 and 4.

                Statements 2 and 3 concern RRG consensus, which only
                the co-chairs can decide.

                Statement 2 also seems to assume that the difference
                between CEE architectures (e.g. GSE, ILNP or
                GLI-split) and CES architectures (e.g. Ivip or LISP)
                is merely an "engineering" matter.  I argue that the
                differences are architectural and are highly
                significant.

Hi Tony,

I didn't vote because questions 2 and 3 concern whether the RRG has
consensus or rough consensus.  I can't tell whether there is
consensus or not - only you and Lixia can do that, by whatever
measurement techniques and thresholds you choose.

Here are my thoughts on the four questions:

   (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."

I entirely support this statement.  The current growth in the DFZ
RIB/FIB is unsustainable in the long-term.  That is, I do not expect
the financial and other costs it creates to be reasonable now or
sustainable in the long-term, considering all the technological
progress we might expect in routers.

This growth is only a part of the multihoming aspect of the routing
scaling problem.  The other part concerns the networks which can't
get multihoming due to the current restrictions.  The same goes for
portability.

The current growth: http://bgp.potaroo.net is due to a highly
constrained version of the growth in multihoming and portable address
space: only those networks with the resources and the desire
(considering the negative impact it has on all DFZ router operators)
to gain and advertise their own PI space are in fact getting
multihoming and portability.

If there was a less expensive, less onerous and less unfairly
burdensome approach to multihoming and portability then the true
demand for these would become apparent.

Furthermore, I believe there is a demand for global mobility of IP
addresses, which would involve a vastly greater number of "networks"
- potentially every IP-connected cellphone in the world. (And I read
that India is adding 20 million cellphones a month.)  The only
approach I am aware of which can achieve this is:

  http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/TTR-Mobility.pdf

   (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."

Ran provides no definition of "separating identity from location".

I believe that Locator/Identity Separation is implemented by HIP,
GSE, GLI-Split, ILNP, Name-Based Sockets and RANGI.  ("Core Edge
Elimination" architectures.)  With these, every host has one or more
identities and one or more locators - with Identifiers and Locators
being in different namespaces.  Host protocols are changed
accordingly from the current model in which the IP address performs
both roles.

The other major class of scalable routing proposal as the Core Edge
Separation (CES) architectures: IRON-RANGER, Ivip, LISP and TIDR.
There are no host changes.  Each host has one or more IP addresses
and each IP address functions as both an Identifier and a Locator (of
the host's particular interface, not of the host).  So hosts do not
in any way gain separate identifiers and locators.  The fact that
some new elements of the routing system look up some mapping to find
what in LISP is regarded as an RLOC (Routing Locator) doesn't mean
that there is "separation of identity from location".  The RLOC, ETR
address or whatever is not seen by hosts and can applies to entire
networks, not just to individual hosts.

If the RRG discussion and consensus continues on the basis that these
CES architectures also involve "separating identity from location"
then I think this would be doing the field a great disservice, by
fudging an architecturally important distinction.

I think the statement implies that both these types of architectures
(CEE and CES) involve "locator - identity separation" and that the
differences between them all are only "engineering" differences, not
**architectural** differences.

It is fundamentally architecturally different to give each host (or
host interface) separate Identifiers and Locators than to leave them
as they are, and solve the scaling problem in the network alone (CES
architectures).  This is because the former (CEE) involves
fundamental changes to the host protocols - including placing extra
burdens of computational effort, management traffic and consequent
delays on hosts.  Who would seriously argue (rather than simply
assert) that there is no significant, architectural, difference
between, for instance, ILNP and LISP, or ILNP and Ivip?

For more on this, please see the threads in recent months: "LISP does
not implement Locator / Identity Separation" starting:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06190.html

and "Why won't supporters of Loc/ID Separation (CEE) argue their
case? (Summary of differences)":

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

   (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."

I agree that "the Internet needs to support multi-homing in a manner
that scales well and does not have prohibitive costs."  Likewise
portability, mobility and multihoming with inbound traffic engineering.

   (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)."

I agree with this.  We can't impose solutions.  They have to be
adopted very widely on an entirely voluntary basis.  I believe the
solution has to work and be attractive for networks of all sizes
which have any significant need for what is currently hard to get, or
unobtainable: multihoming (with inbound TE), portability and mobility.

If we make a solution which is not perceived to be suitable for the
largest networks, then many smaller networks would avoid it, because
they plan to become bigger in the future.  For more on this, please see:

  http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/RRG-2009/constraints/

   - Robin

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 15:10:44 +0530

Tony, Ran, All,

First, thanks very much to Ran for conducting the poll and generating a 
substantial amount of consensus of view.  Tony has asked for additional 
discussion on (1).  For everyone's information here is the text:

> whereby site multi-homing increases the size/entropy of the DFZ 
> RIB/FIB, is not believed to be scalable or viable."

As one of the people who withheld my vote on this point, I will explain 
why I did so.  My own view is that the wording was a bit open ended, and 
I would like to have seen it qualified just a bit more.  It seems to me 
that Geoff's latest research is worth keeping in mind.  There he pointed 
out that the number of updates has been constant over some period of 
time, even as the number of prefixes is increasing.

We have a number of unknowns in the medium term:

    * What will be the impact of IPv6 transition/coexistence?
    * What will be the impact of IPv4 exhaustion (this is perhaps the
      other side of the same coin)?
    * How will networks connect to each other in the future?  For
      example, will the southern hemisphere become considerably more
      interconnected than it is now?
    * How will/should consumers multihome?

If we cannot answer these questions we can certainly assert that these 
are risks relating to the scalability of the routing system.

You'll note I'm shying away from mobility for the moment, but that may 
be an elephant in the room.

Regards,

Eliot

On 5/25/10 2:34 AM, Tony Li wrote:
> On 5/24/10 10:58 AM, "RJ Atkinson"<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>

---

From: "Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 13:00:55 +0300

Hello Eliot
 
In addition to what you cited below from Geoff's research, there is an
other study suggesting that the advances in multi-core processors and
memory technology are "sufficient to keep the sky from falling".
 
Routing Tables: Is Smaller Really Much Better? Kevin Fall. Gianluca
Iannaccone. Sylvia Ratnasamy. Intel Labs Berkeley. P. Brighten Godfrey
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: 
 
http://berkeley.intel-research.net/sylvia/hotnets2009-final156.pdf 
 
Published in Hotnets2009.
 
Best regards
Hannu

________________________________

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of ext Eliot Lear
	Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 12:41
	To: Tony Li
	Cc: IRTF Routing RG; RJ Atkinson
	Subject: [rrg] moving toward the next straw poll for q 1?

	Tony, Ran, All,
	
	First, thanks very much to Ran for conducting the poll and
generating a substantial amount of consensus of view.  Tony has asked
for additional discussion on (1).  For everyone's information here is
the text:

		(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."

	As one of the people who withheld my vote on this point, I will
explain why I did so.  My own view is that the wording was a bit open
ended, and I would like to have seen it qualified just a bit more.  It
seems to me that Geoff's latest research is worth keeping in mind.
There he pointed out that the number of updates has been constant over
some period of time, even as the number of prefixes is increasing.

	*	What will be the impact of IPv6 transition/coexistence? 
	*	What will be the impact of IPv4 exhaustion (this is
perhaps the other side of the same coin)? 
	*	How will networks connect to each other in the future?
For example, will the southern hemisphere become considerably more
interconnected than it is now? 
	*	How will/should consumers multihome? 

	If we cannot answer these questions we can certainly assert that
these are risks relating to the scalability of the routing system.
	
	You'll note I'm shying away from mobility for the moment, but
that may be an elephant in the room.
	
	Regards,
	
	Eliot

		Hi all,
		
		It's now considerably after the official close of this
poll.
		
		As of this writing, there were 33 responses, of which 1
is clearly invalid.
		That leaves us with 32 valid responses.

		All of these clearly represent rough consensus.
However, I would be happier
		if Statement 1 had a slightly more decisive consensus.
Therefore, I'd like
		to ask the group to continue to discuss, refine, and
repeat the poll on a
		revised version of Statement 1.  I suspect that simple
wordsmithing will
		suffice.
		
		The other 3 statements will show up in the next rev of
the document.
		
		Regards,
		Tony

		On 5/24/10 10:58 AM, "RJ Atkinson" <[email-masked]>
<mailto:[email-masked]>  wrote:

			The poll closes in just under 1 hour (from when
I write this note).
			If anyone has not yet participated and would
like to do so,
			PLEASE go do so RIGHT NOW.  As a reminder, the
poll URL remains:
			<http://www.doodle.com/z5s9yq8kt73eua9t>
<http://www.doodle.com/z5s9yq8kt73eua9t> 
			
			As I write this, there are 31 valid
participants, and one
			spoilt ballot.  Votes are public, visible via
the above URL.
			
			For the record, no one has been censored,
although someone
			failed in an attempt at humour by entering a
spoilt ballot
			which s/he herself/himself labelled "Censored
by...".
			
			Under IRTF process rules, determination of RG
consensus is
			the privilege of the RG chairs.
			
			So, purely as an observation, not a consensus
determination,
			most current (13:52 EDT, 24th May 2010)
participants support
			all 4 statements.
			Statement 1 currently has (19/31 or ~61%)
agreed.
			Statement 2 currently has (25/31 or ~81%)
agreed.
			Statement 3 currently has (31/31 or 100%)
agreed.
			Statement 4 currently has (30/31 or ~97%)
agreed.

			Yours,
			
			Ran