[RADIR] comments on section 6
"John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net> Tue, 14 August 2007 15:20 UTC
Return-path: <radir-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IKyC3-0007Zt-Ab; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:20:27 -0400
Received: from radir by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IKyC1-0007ZL-Kx for radir-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:20:25 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IKyC1-0007Ys-Au for radir@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:20:25 -0400
Received: from smtpb.juniper.net ([207.17.137.119]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IKyC0-0004Mf-4F for radir@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:20:25 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO merlot.juniper.net) ([172.17.27.10]) by smtpb.juniper.net with ESMTP/TLS/DES-CBC3-SHA; 14 Aug 2007 08:20:23 -0700
Received: from [172.16.13.200] ([172.16.13.200]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id l7EFKMO54040 for <radir@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:20:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jgs@juniper.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <7821975E-6247-40F4-9CD9-A801BDD20778@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
To: radir@ietf.org
From: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:20:17 -0400
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7fa173a723009a6ca8ce575a65a5d813
Subject: [RADIR] comments on section 6
X-BeenThere: radir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Directorate <radir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir>, <mailto:radir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/radir>
List-Post: <mailto:radir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir>, <mailto:radir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: radir-bounces@ietf.org
Folks, I've received a number of private comments about section 6 in the last few weeks. I've taken a swag at modifying the section to reflect those comments. First, the revised section, then some discussion of the changes. Also, it looks like I'll have to miss our call again today. Sorry. --John Revised section: 6. Problem Statement As discussed in previous sections, in the current business environment it may be difficult for ISPs to recover control plane related costs created by the growth of the Internet. The Internet needs a viable economic model, and technology needs to be designed with this in mind. Thus, in the absence of a business model which allows such cost recovery, there is a need for an approach to routing and addressing that fulfils the following criteria: 1. A party who bears the costs of deploying and maintaining the technology should be able to derive benefits from it that are sufficient to recover the cost for doing so, and cost recovery should not be predicated on universal or even widespread deployment of the technology. 2. Reduces the growth rate of the DFZ control plane load. In the current architecture, this is dominated by the routing, which is dependent on: A. The number of individual prefixes in the DFZ B. The update rate associated with those prefixes. Any new architecture should take care that overall control plane load, including but not limited to the above, is addressed. 3. Reduces or holds constant the operational expenses associated with the control plane. If a new architecture does increase operational expenses, it must reduce other (e.g., capital) expenses at least enough to compensate. 4. Allows any end site wishing to multihome to do so. 5. Supports ISP and enterprise TE needs. 6. Allows end sites to switch providers while minimizing configuration changes to internal end site devices. 7. Provides end-to-end convergence/restoration of service at least comparable to that provided by the current architecture. Discussion of specific changes and their rationale: - The overall document exists within the context of a business environment, and much of what it addresses is "tragedy of the commons" problems, where network operators are not able to recover costs associated with factors which drive the scale of the DFZ. In the document, in effect we are calling for technical solutions for these "tragedy of the commons" problems. I think this is fine but we can address the concern (about the document's bias towards a technical solution solution) by acknowledging that we're only aiming to cover that portion of the problem space. Modified the prefatory paragraph to do that. - Moved old point #5 to be new point #1. This is because it really seems like the overarching point, all the others could almost be sub- bullets. It could be summed up as saying that the Internet needs a viable economic model and that technology needs to be designed with this in mind -- which really is the point of this whole exercise, isn't it? - Rewrote old point #5 as new point #1. Frankly I was OK with the old text, but the observation was made that the form given above is clearer (instead of relying on what's implicit in the word "meaningful" in the old version). The new version also captures the principle of incremental deployability which I think is widely (dare I say universally?) agreed to be a sine qua non for any new architecture to succeed. - Rewrote old point #1 as new point #2. The point here is that we're not really concerned exclusively with routing load, but rather with control plane load. It's true that the two are approximately equal in the current architecture, but clearly some proposed architectures would move load to other control plane elements (e.g. a mapping service, either push or pull flavored). - Added new point #3. The observation was that reducing routing load is beneficial insofar as it controls costs to deliver service. This is presumably through controlling capex. The further observation was that if the approach called for in section 6 were to increase opex, that would have to be taken into account also -- if we're considering costs, we should take a holistic view. Although this is kind of implicit in (old point #5, new point #1), it seemed worth making it explicit. - Renumbered the rest of the points. - Added point #7, which should be pretty much self-explanatory. There's room to debate the point, but I for one think it's reasonable. Others? _______________________________________________ RADIR mailing list RADIR@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir
- [RADIR] comments on section 6 John G. Scudder
- Re: [RADIR] comments on section 6 Thomas Narten
- [RADIR] Definition of routing plane Jason Schiller