Subject: [RAM] Re: Routing & Addressing -- activities (BOF)

From: "Fergie" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 06:32:29 GMT

- -- Brian Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:

>As part of the routing and addressing activities, a BOF is planned
>during IETF 68, as a plenary activity (day and time to be
>announced later). This will be tracked in the BOF wiki at 
http://www1.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki
>
>
>Details so far:
>
>   * ROAP
>          o ROuting and Addressing Problem BOF
>          o Joint with Internet Area; will be a plenary session
>          o Status: preliminary discussions
>          o Background: RAWS report
>          o Responsible ADs: Ross Callon, Mark Townsley 
>
>Ross and Mark will be collecting proposals for the goals
>and content of the BOF.
>

Has there been any updates to report on this? :-)

- - ferg

--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg(at)netzero.net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:22:42 +0200

Fergie,
> Has there been any updates to report on this? :-)
We are planning to have a meeting in Prague. Logistics
and the agenda are still under discussion. But I believe
that we are going to have some time in one of the
plenaries, as well as time from the Internet and 
Routing area meetings.

In terms of what discussion makes sense at this point, the
following items come to my mind:

- An update/discussion on what we've learned about the problems
  related to routing table size and dynamics of routing updates
  since San Diego.

- Discussion about possible improvements in the routing space. For
  instance, is there something we could do about the UPDATE
  dynamics?

- Discussion about possible improvements in the addressing space,
  primarily some form of identifier-locator split designs. This
  discussion should probably focus on the architectural choices,
  desired functionality and requirements, application impacts etc
  rather than the actual solutions.  (But parallel work on solution
  ideas is still very welcome -- and ongoing.)

Note that the three topics are somewhat independent, e.g., the
improvements can be useful for many reasons, not just the problem
mentioned above.

Thoughts?

Jari

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:57:20 -0500

>   related to routing table size and dynamics of routing updates

I think it is fairly important that we have a shared understanding of
the problem (so that any work we do in this area, actually has a
positive impact on the problems/concerns that people have).

I'd encourage people to have a look at Section 7 of
draft-iab-raws-report-00.txt.

Does the text adequately capture what people consider to be the key
issue(s)?

Thomas