Re: [RAM] (no subject)
HeinerHummel@aol.com Mon, 11 June 2007 21:09 UTC
Return-path: <ram-bounces@iab.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hxr8u-0004P9-5u; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:09:40 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hxr8t-0004P4-LH for ram@iab.org; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:09:39 -0400
Received: from imo-d21.mx.aol.com ([205.188.144.207]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hxr8s-0003pX-9C for ram@iab.org; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:09:39 -0400
Received: from HeinerHummel@aol.com by imo-d21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.2.) id j.d39.b429a86 (41810); Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:09:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: HeinerHummel@aol.com
Message-ID: <d39.b429a86.339f140c@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:09:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [RAM] (no subject)
To: rja@extremenetworks.com, ram@iab.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5014
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b6657e60309a1317174c9db2ae5f227
Cc:
X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List <ram.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ram>
List-Post: <mailto:ram@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1533750681=="
Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org
In einer eMail vom 10.06.2007 17:59:30 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt rja@extremenetworks.com: > Correct me if I am wrong: the IPv6 address space > does not INCLUDE the IPv4 address space. Not correct. There is a special prefix in IPv6 that says the low-order 32 bits are an IPv4 address. [RFC-4291, Section 2.5.5.2, Page 10-11] Thank you Ran > One for E.164 (instead of DNS mapping a la enum) ? Etc. etc. I believe that it might also be possible to algorithmically place an E.164 into an NSAP and then into an IPv6 address using the special prefix that means an NSAP is in the low-order bits of the IPv6 address. It isn't clear to me whether this is explicitly documented at present. My point here is: By catering multiple address families it becomes more obvious that multicast-address range is the wrong way to indicate "p2mp processing". Multicast address range is a bad design principle back from the early beginning. The discussion on this RAM mailinglist has only Unicast in mind:-( The really best solution however will improve the situation for all: p2p Unicast, p2p Anycast, p2mp Multicast, mp2p, mp2mp. So let's be focused again on routing: In an email from Lixia on 29.05.2007 05:57:14, _lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU_ (mailto:lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU) it says : Splitting prefixes is a simple and effective means to achieve traffic engineering goals, and whoever needs to do it will do it. I believe a scalable solution essentially lies on the ability to effectively (re) aggregate prefixes. my answer was: ...or, just the opposite as I believe, on a design that removes the pressure for doing prefix aggregation totally. Then silence. More then ten years ago we worked in the PNNI-WG of the ATM Forum. Georg Swallow had already introduced the "UPLINK". A border-to-border node link between two peer groups was supposed to be representated by some uplink. That uplink was subject to be aggregated to some induced uplink, eventually several times in some recursive manner, and finally supposed ´to become part of a "higher level horizontal link". The same applied to the neighboring side so that from either side the same border-to-border link had to wind up in the same higher level horizontal link by either side. I was against that link/upling aggregation: I told the audience, when we will adjourn the meeting, we only have to know at which city, which hotel and which ballroom the next meeting will take place, and every one is able to get there next time. Based on this thought the Aggregation Token was born, and the horrible topic of aggregating links/uplinks was off the table. The link/uplink aggregation would have caused, relatively, the same scalability problem that this community is about to fight. So this is just another proof that there is no need to effectively (re) aggregate prefixes. Heiner
_______________________________________________ RAM mailing list RAM@iab.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram
- [RAM] (no subject) RJ Atkinson
- Re: [RAM] (no subject) Brian E Carpenter
- RE: [RAM] (no subject) Templin, Fred L
- Re: [RAM] (no subject) HeinerHummel
- [RAM] (no subject) RJ Atkinson
- [RAM] (no subject) RJ Atkinson
- [RAM] (no subject) Lixia Zhang