Subject: RE: [RAM] LISP and the Global Internet Architecture

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:08:25 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>

    > until IPv6 permitted PI addresses, it represented a mechanism that
    > required large end users to be held captive to their ISPs. This is
    > untenable to any end user and violates a fundamental law of economics
    > that businesses support the needs of their customers.

This was certainly not the intent, or reason, that location-based
addressing was put forward; rather, it was principally motivated by
technical considerations. ("PA" is just a post-hoc label applied to
something that came from technical considerations, hence its original
names - "location-based addressing" or "connectivity-based addressing".)

You are correct that it had economic consequences that either weren't
adequately considered, or taken into account (or perhaps both), at the
time.

I think the whole IPv6 experience (and not just the PA/PI thing) has made
us all much more sensitive to the need to try and understand the economics
of the proposed deployment of any new stuff.

Which leads me to wonder what the future really is, though. What happens
when the IPv4 addresses really do start to run out in a few years? Will we
see a market develop for IPv4 addresses, plus continued use of NAT? Or will
uSoft's attempt to drive IPv6 deployment by including it in Vista succeed?

And even more importantly, is there really any scope left for good
fundamentals-based engineering, or will we always be restricted by
economic/business considerations to the cheapest thing we can possibly come
up with that more or less kludges the network into continued operation?

Maybe it's time to switch out of networking (or just plain retire and
take up building furniture :-).

	Noel

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

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 06:52:20 -0700

> Or will uSoft's attempt to drive IPv6 deployment by
> including it in Vista succeed?

I have more or less been viewing the Microsoft solution
as a glimmering hope for incremental deployment. And, if
that doesn't pan out, will we have missed the ship(worm)?

Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 06:52:20 -0700

Fred

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:46:51 -0700

On Apr 2, 2007, at 7:08 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> see a market develop for IPv4 addresses, plus continued use of NAT?

Yes.  And this will drive increased fragmentation of the routing  
space, resulting in increased routing information load.

> Or will

Microsoft is a necessary but insufficient condition for IPv6 to gain  
traction.  Since there is no "killer application" for IPv6, what is  
really needed is:

a) removal of distinction to end user (and end user support  
organizations) about what kind of address is being used
b) a cost benefit for ISPs and content providers to add IPv6  
capability to their existing IPv4 services

It may be that the IPv4 market will contribute to (b).

> up with that more or less kludges the network into continued  

It is generally difficult to re-engineer a Sopwith Camel into an F-22  
in flight.

Rgds,
-drc

---

From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:19:09 -0700

Noel,

As long as our community fails to share a common Internet Architecture
together then we are doomed to incremental add ons, even poorly
justified ones. 

LISP is being proposed to become a new consensus architecture for us.
Now is therefore the time to do good fundamentals-based engineering
because if LISP is inadequate to be our architecture, then we would be
very poorly served by trying to build upon it.

However, my point was that fundamentals-based engineering is only part
of the story. The approach selected cannot be inherently self-defeating
if we hope for it to actually achieve our goals.

--Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:08 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [RAM] LISP and the Global Internet Architecture

I think the whole IPv6 experience (and not just the PA/PI thing) has
made us all much more sensitive to the need to try and understand the
economics of the proposed deployment of any new stuff.

Which leads me to wonder what the future really is, though. What happens
when the IPv4 addresses really do start to run out in a few years? Will
we see a market develop for IPv4 addresses, plus continued use of NAT?
Or will uSoft's attempt to drive IPv6 deployment by including it in
Vista succeed?

And even more importantly, is there really any scope left for good
fundamentals-based engineering, or will we always be restricted by
economic/business considerations to the cheapest thing we can possibly
come up with that more or less kludges the network into continued
operation?

	Noel

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 06:20:10 +0200

Dear Eric and Noel,
you are Internet designers. I am a forced user of it. I am glad you 
share my judgment, but I am less pessimitic than you.

At 22:19 04/04/2007, Fleischman, Eric wrote:
>However, my point was that fundamentals-based engineering is only 
>part of the story. The approach selected cannot be inherently 
>self-defeating if we hope for it to actually achieve our goals.

IMHO IAB addressed this very well in RFC 3869.
However, the IETF was absent when the response was discussed, at the 
WSIS and IGF. By its own decision.
This may still be addressed.
Why not to run a common workshop in Rio to tell the people the truth 
and get the support we need.
The support we need is actually not money, but simply attention.

>economics of the proposed deployment of any new stuff.

Yes, 15 years are a long time to understand what CCITT voted in 1983.

>we see a market develop for IPv4 addresses, plus continued use of NAT?

IPv8 was the likely solution. Wild LISP is now a better possibility.

>take up building furniture :-).

May I suggest that the problem is that for too long the IETF culture 
has tried to address modelisation and architectural issues as if they 
were fundamental engineering. How can people move from IESG to IAB. 
These are two different trades. By definition the best architecture 
is the one which is the most elegant, hence the cheapest, to address 
the market needs. User inputs are usually a good help to find it more 
quickly. In our new society, it happens that lead users are 
progressively able to carry the innovation. However, a discussion 
with Stallman yesterday shown me the limitations that our own 
solutions impose on us. This started with IETF rought consensus and 
GNU licenses. They were good at the begining, they are the limitation 
factor now because it turns out that they do not technically and 
economically scale. The same for engineering without architecturing.

New Internet Architecture is necessary in every dimension of the 
network architecture (naming, addressing, routing, protocols, etc.). 
Once the first alert  has been patched via CIDR, http.1.1 and NATs, 
the next key necessity was languages. IETF tried to patch it through 
IDNA and RFC 4646. PR-acting me was its solution to patch this 
architectural issue :-). Unfortunately it failed: shutting me-up was 
nothing compared with the coming multilingual TLD and indexing 
compounded issues. etc. and the following resulting identification 
issue, which in turn will fire the fuse of addressing once again.

May be the best would be to PR-action LISP :-) What worries me is 
that round the world Telcos are switching to TCP/IP, US DoD was 
supposed to have entirely switched to IPv6 before July 2008, etc.

jfc

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 07:04:17 -0700

Noel,

> up with that more or less kludges the network into continued operation?

Whether something is a "kludge" is a matter of (a subjective) opinion. 

The choice between various options is *not* going to be driven by
whether one option is defined by some individuals as "good
fundamental-based engineering" vs another option is being defined
as a "kludge", but by the cost/benefit analysis between these two
options.

> take up building furniture :-).

Unless you willing to go bankrupt, building furniture will not get you 
out of the cost/benefit analysis :-)

Yakov.