Re: I-D Action: draft-foglar-ipv6-ull-routing-00.txt

Brian,

> On Sep 15, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Re https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-foglar-ipv6-ull-routing-00
> 
> "One of the goals of IPv6 was to have a sufficiently long address
> to allow grouping in fields to simplify routing decisions."
> 
> What makes you believe that? I don't recall such a goal in the IPng
> process, and I can't see any trace of it in RFC1752 or RFC1726.

I agree, I don’t remember anything like the goal written above.

Bob

> 
> I do find some rather different considerations in RFC1726:
> 
>> 5.1 Scale
>> 
>>   CRITERION
>>      The IPng Protocol must scale to allow the identification and
>>      addressing of at least 10**12 end systems (and preferably much
>>      more).  The IPng Protocol, and its associated routing protocols
>>      and architecture must allow for at least 10**9 individual networks
>>      (and preferably more).  The routing schemes must scale at a rate
>>      that is less than the square root of the number of constituent
>>      networks
> 
> which means that routing via a binary tree of addresses was not
> considered OK.
> 
> ...
>> 5.2 Topological Flexibility
>> 
>>   CRITERION
>>      The routing architecture and protocols of IPng must allow for many
>>      different network topologies.  The routing architecture and
>>      protocols must not assume that the network's physical structure is
>>      a tree.
> 
> ditto.
> 
> So regardless of where we are today, I believe your assertion quoted
> above is not true. In fact the exact opposite was the case when IPv6
> was designed.
> 
> Now, if I ignore the stranger aspects of your proposal, you are
> proposing to subnet a /64 using something like a binary tree. It might
> even work, at the price of replacing a great deal of existing software
> and hardware. However, is there really a need for cut-through routing
> in sensor networks, which seems to be your target scenario?
> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: I-D Action: draft-foglar-ipv6-ull-routing-00.txt

Attachment: signature.asc