Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

William Herrin <> Sat, 10 November 2012 13:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0904E21F8587 for <>; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 05:42:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pu24RSA0y2lZ for <>; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 05:42:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4248321F8529 for <>; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 05:42:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id wc20so6196423obb.13 for <>; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 05:42:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=JLgWbHRPEW8MuFbXiD/zMbEzuegC8LmIdlgRPSlvUDg=; b=lMLwELqBlfwuiyTZcKqZy/bEvu5Lmg/PP3YuJ6n/rPGQk8qAB5RhGN8N4hIvDa2xCY EX0ls9w+g7vn8QYGL+WizlCOU4WN62J0iux8vuJ/vzRXJDES8Wb/jrFcCAcgYiA70j4z RFgLLBIr9W1l00bIaagc4zWAwc34RJOmXCTg4UKMfpwotfLhCSXOzE2d4XPY3eCRkv8B fgmgcGvlwHNV3LvDGuXtCr7Scz7fQgIImErk+rTRf0UiXLFFTLib7qg2EUxyp+m7fpOj CV8uQ19Ql5ZKltcsxsmI8LKW+XSunXveZLWqyj1uAhoAIWahkw8Vy/MqgU8D+GuKdInP YQBw==
Received: by with SMTP id l6mr10355278oec.87.1352554948716; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 05:42:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 05:42:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: William Herrin <>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:42:08 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: uEdPuUguu7x-daXM3uPz9Hrq0I0
Message-ID: <>
To: Noel Chiappa <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:42:34 -0000

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Noel Chiappa <> wrote:
>> From: Tony Li <>

> We still have the same old kludgy BGP global routing system we always had,
> and _nothing_ has been proposed to improve/replace it.
>> The group has ... helped push the boundaries of routing farther
>> forward.
> Nonsense. It has produced no routing work at all.

Hi Noel,

I have a notion for a "routing" protocol which manages link changes
through dynamic readdressing and multiply addressing hosts. By and
large the addresses change so that the trivially aggregable routes
don't have to. Not just at the host level but all the way downstream
from the link change. Even bumps automatic resizing requirements
upstream so that over time any given router offers exactly one route
outward which automatically aggregates with the route its upstream
already holds.

It does require a new suite of transport protocols where layer 4 is as
loosely bound to layer 3 as layer 3 currently is to layer 2, along
with a new suite of APIs which don't expect the application layer to
manage remote addresses.

It's fresh. Might even be a genuinely new approach to routing. Are you
game to flesh it out and see how far we can run with it, even though
the odds of ever reaching deployment on an approach which requires us
to abandon TCP and UDP are not good?

Bill Herrin

William D. Herrin ................
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004