Re: [Anima] [homenet] ANIMA scope + homenet interaction + charter v15

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 31 October 2014 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691991ACD0C; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H0pftzGWwxcB; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B118E1ACD0B; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.20.107] (c-71-233-43-215.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [71.233.43.215]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C37C923802BB; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:47:49 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AF6C8A9@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:47:47 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E597E398-6AFB-4355-B2C4-8559D19A6AF0@fugue.com>
References: <544FF8FC.5090103@cisco.com> <95338658-B4F2-4634-AC7B-7B893C4DEF2E@iki.fi> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AF6C46E@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <DEB8F897-3CED-4C59-BEBF-BF64096282F2@fugue.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AF6C7AE@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>, <8490A544-45A9-45D2-9C98-D3CBEB28651D@fugue.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AF6C8A9@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
To: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/ZS8lvR109KP7TLhciTMvYUv_lvA
Cc: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>, Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Anima] [homenet] ANIMA scope + homenet interaction + charter v15
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:47:53 -0000

On Oct 31, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com> wrote:
> The current general mechanism are too general to work for the use case of hierarchical prefix delegation. But if we add hierarchical topology and no bypass requests as constraint conditions, we may be able to make hierarchical prefix delegation work.

No, that is not the point I am making.   The point I am making is that hierarchical delegation simply won't work, no matter what mechanism you put in place to do it, because the network has to be able to grow incrementally.   With that as a base assumption, you cannot predict where the network will grow, so you don't know how to construct the hierarchy.   Once the hierarchy is constructed, you would have to renumber on a regular basis to make hierarchical delegation work.   I think it is preferable to simply allow for a complete routing table, and then try as best as possible to make routing hierarchical, without demanding perfection.