Subject: [rrg] Consensus check on ILNP

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:45:57 -0700

Hi all,

I'd like to start the consensus check on the publication of the ILNP suite.  Specifically, the following documents:

	draft-rja-ilnp-dns-07.txt
	draft-rja-ilnp-icmp-06.txt
	draft-rja-ilnp-intro-06.txt
	draft-rja-ilnp-nonce-06.txt

Please respond to the poll found here:
http://www.doodle.com/cvwnnnxrcvqnktug

This check will close 1 week from the publication of this message.

Questions?  Comments?

Regards,
Tony

---

From: Toni Stoev <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:36:14 +0300

I am not in favor of ILNP, but it contains a few concepts that should be disseminated. Those are: node reference instead of interface's; and location/identity separation.

ILNP still/foreseeingly says "but the RG reached a consensus that the document still should be published". So go frustrate/fascinate network professionals who are every year taught interface-thinking.

2010.9.21 00:45:57 Tony Li:
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
>

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:08:04 +1000

I voted in support of the ILNP I-Ds being published as RFC outputs of
the RRG.

However, as I have noted before, I think that the claims that ILNP can
work with existing IPv6 applications are misleading:

  Fwd: I-D Action:draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-09.txt - ILNP problems
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07185.html
  2010-08-01

I assumed it could be done, but when I worked through the details, I
couldn't see a way of doing it.  Tony Li tried to figure out how to do
it, without success.  Ran has not tried to show how it could be done.

There are many other objections to ILNP, but this one I think is
particularly serious, since it involves a claim, which if taken as
true, would provide ILNP with a significant advantage over other Core
Edge Elimination proposals which are in the RRG Report.  The three
other CEE proposals - GLI-Split, Name Based Sockets and RANGI - all
require applications to be rewritten.  ILNP's claims about operating
with existing applications, or at least IPv6 applications (there is
little discussion of ILNPv4 in the report or the I-Ds) includes:

  From the Report:

     ILNP can be implemented such that existing applications (e.g.
     applications using the BSD Sockets API) do NOT need any changes
     or modifications to use ILNP.

  From the intro I-D:

     So it is believed that existing IP address referrals can
     continue to work properly in most cases.

Also, none of the other CEE architectures involve claim of working on
IPv4.  They all assume IPv6 as a basis.  ILNP has an IPv4 version -
the practical problems of which are not fully acknowledged in the RRG
Report or I-Ds.  ILNPv4 requires all packets be longer, with an IPv4
Header Option, which will not be handled efficiently by many, most or
all routers, including DFZ routers.

Further objections to CEE architectures in general can be found in:

  "Overloading" of Loc & ID functions is good for hosts and should be
  maintained  (2010-06-22)
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07017.html

 - Robin

---

From: xuxiaohu 41208 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 23:44:54 +0800

Hi Robin,

> require applications to be rewritten. 

In fact, RANGI doesn't require any change to applications. We have just finished the implementions and experiments of RANGI.

I will provide the URL for RANGI source codes soon.

Best wishes,
Xiaohu

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:49:14 -0700

This consensus check is now closed.  We received 14 responses in favor of publication and one non-response that was neither in favor nor against.  I take that to be an abstention.  This is clear consensus, and we will proceed to refer these documents to the IRSG.

Tony

---

From: Toni Stoev <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:20:04 +0300

Tony,

Salute the IRSG with this quotation:

Document "ILNP Concept of Operations", section "Status of this Memo", last paragraph, last sentence:
"The Routing RG has had remarkably little consensus on anything, so virtually all Routing RG outputs are considered controversial."
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rja-ilnp-intro-06

that has just got a consensus.

Toni