Re: [rrg] Recommendation and what happens next

[Russ White <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> Yes, a path.  Not necessarily a single proposal, but a clear plan.  From the
> charter:
> 
>     The group will produce ... a recommendation for a routing and addressing
>     architecture.
> 
> It doesn't say "a set of possible architectures" or "some vague things that
> we could do".  
> 
> Again, our job is to make a decision and that's what we're going to do.

One thing that might be _nice_ is to have some idea of what the future
of routing, in general, looks like under each proposal. In other words,
does the proposal allow future changes in the routing system through
incremental deployment of new ideas and techniques, or does it place us
in the position of forcing "flag days?" As architectures become more
complex on the machine side, they also tend to become more brittle in
general.

A second thing might be to address mobility. How does each proposal deal
with host level mobility, since this is obviously a direction in the
Internet at large (whether we like it or not, mobile phones and other
such devices are going to rely increasingly on the Internet, which
may--or may not--place a larger burden on the routing system).

A third thing might be to address whether or not any of the solutions
proposed actually resolves the problem seen in the field--IE, describing
what the problem is and why it exists (I've mostly seen hand waving to
this point about the size of the global table, and projections against
the future size of that table, but nothing that says why the table is
growing at this rate, other than the blanket statement of "dual homing,"
which doesn't really answer the question at all), and how each solution
specifically resolves the problem. Since I don't tend to think the
problem is "dual homing," since that problem is "solvable" in other ways
that don't require a redesign of the entire Internet routing architecture.

Don't know how far we'll go on these sorts of things, but it would
certainly help increase the ability of folks to assess the work if we
could consider them in some way.

Russ
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkuUWZcACgkQER27sUhU9OTtCACfd9VDYUH+cDXYxEKNKD7JnY+T
sfQAoMWBFQq5sAAL91yAzQFjrY5MicvT
=w3Yl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----