Subject: Re: other requirement? (was Re: [RAM] Traffic Engineering

From: "Fergie" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:37:08 GMT

- -- Tony Li <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I think it would be much easier to go for 128 bits identifiers,  
>> reserving a /8 global prefix for the identifier name space  
>> (something like the globally managed ULAs, but maybe with some  
>> differences on the cost structure)
>> Then these would be local addresses, that the host will use to  
>> generate packet and these are valid in the local domain. when the  
>> packet reaches the border of the local domain, the border router  
>> rewrites the source and/or destiantion prefix with a globally  
>> routable prefix and routes it through the internet.
>
>
>This would be NAT.  If we're doing NAT, why not just stay with IPv4?
>

Works for me. Really.

- - 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: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 12:57:56 +0100

Dave,
> In my opinion, shim6 as it stands is not a _site_ multi-homing 
> technology, rather it is a _host_ multi-homing technology.  It also 
> doesn't help with "transparent renumbering" and I believe people have 
> argued that it makes the traffic engineering problem worse (at least 
> from the perspective of ISPs).
Several points:

   1. Elwyn Davis has already made a strong argument that even if
      enterprises fully deployed SHIM6 or were otherwise completely
      single homed then we would still have a problem to discuss on this
      list because of traffic engineering.  That is - sources and
      transit providers will continue to manipulate locater routing
      information for their own purposes.
   2. I fail to see how SHIM6 either helps or hurts this problem.  To me
      the discussion of SHIM6 (or HIP, for that matter) is a canard
      given (1).  While I believe there is a tremendous amount of FUD
      generated about a relatively non-existent mechanism that argues
      strongly for correction, so far as I can tell that takes us away
      from the purpose of this list.
   3. It seems to me that Ran and others are correct to focus on entropy
      within the core.  It would be extremely useful to have some sort
      of bibliography so that the community could better understand how
      the core behaves today.  Tony's analysis of where the pain points
      are largely speaking revolves around memory access times and being
      on the technology knee.  That being the case, I wonder about the
      nature of BGP updates today that we can reduce those updates.
   4. Size probably also matters but my figuring from this discussion is
      that the reasonable assumption is that it matters because it's
      believed to be positively correlated to entropy.  Is there any
      other reason to believe size matters?

Eliot

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:34:28 EST

In response to the email below:
 
I think, developing a new  routing model for 'internet-2" would  be an 
exciting task.
There is no reason to be pessimistic. Look, for comparison, the traveling  
salesman problem has been known as one of the NP-hardest problems. But, last  
October some guys came up with a respective solution which infers: P = NP  !!!
So, don't worry, progress is all around.
 
Heiner

 
In einer eMail vom 03.01.2007 16:51:55 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

> I  think what's been said loudly and often by larger network operators  and
> content providers is that SHIM6 isn't solving the problem(s) they  see,
> it's not even attempting to address those problems. So, they  require
> something else to do multihoming, they also realize that that  'something
> else' may require radical changes, and will have to scale  to very large
> numbers over the next 10-15 years.

I think this is key. Namely, that shim6 is solving a
different problem than what the backbone operators are
seeing. Now, one can argue to what degree there is a
different problem, and to what degree shim6 whould solve
such  a problem, but all of that is defocusing. So, here's
proposal:  

How about we just stipulate that shim6  (et al) doesn't
address (nor solve) the problem set the  backbone
operators are dealing with, and move on. 

Why? Well, first, the IETF *is* developing  SHIM6/HIP/...,
and from all the evidence I can see, that will  continue
(no value judgement, just so that is clear). Second,  what
I'm hoping this activitiy leads to is a scalable  routing
(and addressing) system for the Internet (big I).  

Note that such a system will might need to interact  with
whatever the hosts are doing in this domain (e.g.,  hip,
shim6, maybe even things like softwires), hopefully  in
some aggregated way (if at all), and it would be
reasonable to understand those interactions (if any) as
part of any future architecture/design.  

--dmm