Re: [RAM] First cut at routing & addressing problem statement

["John G. Scudder" <[e-mail]>]

Peter,

Thanks for your comments.  With regard to statement 1, we discussed  
whether targeted numbers might be worth including but decided in the  
end not to do so for several reasons.  For one thing, it's an  
invitation for contentious argument about exactly what the numbers  
should be -- which would seem to be a rathole.  For another, the  
supportable values are certainly a moving target, based on the state  
of the art at any given time.

With regard to statement 4, I personally think it's OK as written.   
Surely a proposal which can allow switching with no configuration  
changes also optimally fulfills "minimizing configuration changes".   
Seems like flat-out forbidding any slightest configuration change  
would be going too far, though I think it's clear that forced site  
config changes are undesirable.

With regard to statement 5, with what other statements do you think  
it's redundant?  Note that statement 5 focuses on the alignment of  
cost and benefit.

Regards,

--John

On Jul 27, 2007, at 1:50 PM, Peter Sherbin wrote:
> Enjoined reading the statement. Re the "flatter" Internet in 5.1.  
> since around 2000
> seemingly there is a trend in changing upstream transit contracts  
> to peering
> arrangements. By Q1 2007 in the observed example over 80% of  
> traffic is routed via
> peers.
>
> Statement 1. Would it be beneficial to define the targeted number  
> of individual
> prefixes in DFZ, specify the update rate and then architecture  
> towards those
> numbers? E.g. assume 1 AS per each 10,000 sq km of Earth's surface  
> and 9 routes per
> AS. It gives about 450K as the maximum number of DFZ entries  
> providing an idea of
> the router required processing power.
>
> Statement 4. Make it more rigid "Allows end sites to switch  
> providers without
> configuration changes to internal end site devices".
>
> Statement 5. seems redundant
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> --- Thomas Narten <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> The Routing & Addressing directorate has been working on a strawman
>> problem statement since Prague. I just submitted our first cut as an
>> Internet Draft and it's available at:
>>
>> http://www.cs.duke.edu/~narten/ietf/draft-narten-radir-problem- 
>> statement-00.txt
>>
>> We would welcome comments on the document. In particular:
>>
>>  - Do folk agree with the problem statement as written, or are we
>>    missing something fairly fundamental?
>>
>>  - Are there other pressures on the routing system that we have not
>>    listed or described completely?
>>
>>  - We intentionally did not include improving mobility as a core
>>    "problem", as explained in the document. (That doesn't mean we
>>    don't recognize that some of the solutions under discussion may
>>    also be applicable to mobility scenarios. Rather, we tend to see
>>    improved mobility as a possible benefit of certain classes of
>>    solutions.)
>>
>>  - Are there other views of what folk perceive the core routing and
>>    addressing problem to be?
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RAM mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram
>>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> ______________
> Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added  
> security of spyware protection.
> http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> RAM mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram
>


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