Subject: [RAM] network-based solutions: partial deployment, TE reqs

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:56:34 +0200 (EET)

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, [email-masked] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
> 	Title		: Proxying Approach to SHIM6 and HIP (PASH)
> 	Author(s)	: P. Nikander, K. Slavov
> 	Filename	: draft-nikander-ram-pash-00.txt
> 	Pages		: 13
> 	Date		: 2007-2-28

Just one comment and then some general observations of network-based 
solutions in general:

    Once the Internet core (all Tier 1 ISPs) have done the transition,
    deployment can gradually move towards the PASH 2 and/or 3 genres,
    where the identifiers are no longer routable through the core
    Internet.  This will provide an incentive for sites to upgrade the

==> I'm not sure how well this works, given that most traffic
on the internet does not go through tier 1 ISPs (but rather through 
peerings or upstreams at higher/lower tiers)

...

Partial deployment (of network-based solutions) is more likely a more 
generic issue (also applying to LISP etc) though.  It's not obvious to 
me why end-sites would want to bother with deploying anything if the 
alternative is "keep doing whatever you've been doing, no requirement 
to change anything".

So, if we buy it that TE requirements currently in play will need to 
be satisfied, it means that a network-based solution would need to be 
deployed by those that feel the pain (end-sites necessarily don't), 
meaning tier1 and some tier2 networks.  Further, it'd be unrealistic 
to assume that all of them would deploy the solution given that some 
are likely using routers capable of handling a higher number of 
prefixes yet (i.e., they don't feel the pain and/or don't see the 
impending pain in the near future).

Frankly, to me it seems fulfilling all the TE requirements could 
likely mean that we'll end up duplicating current TE state from BGP 
(and it still stays in BGP due to backward compatibility) to the new 
protocol.  So, if we're serious about allowing the TE usage that 
exists today, the protocol will need to be designed with TE support in 
mind from day one so that the requirements could be fulfilled in a 
more elegant way. (And I don't see any of the currently proposed 
solutions, including those at RRG, do that.)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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