Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-12.txt

Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au> Wed, 01 September 2010 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <rw@firstpr.com.au>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF093A682A for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.038
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.466, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yLy-NSeiOEgc for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gair.firstpr.com.au (gair.firstpr.com.au [150.101.162.123]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB493A69AF for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.6] (wira.firstpr.com.au [10.0.0.6]) by gair.firstpr.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8F5F175D42; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 02:10:02 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <4C7E7AE2.8060709@firstpr.com.au>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 02:10:10 +1000
From: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
Organization: First Principles
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rrg@irtf.org
References: <467c.11769f8e.39afa473@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <467c.11769f8e.39afa473@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-12.txt
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:09:41 -0000

Hello Heiner,

Thanks for your reply, in which you wrote:

> Robin,
>
> I share your opinion about documenting design goals and taxonomy. I
> can imagine that getting these drafts to some end isn't work anyone
> likes to do. Who will read them later?
>
I figure people will read it.  The questions we are tackling will come
up in the future, even if nothing is done with LISP, Ivip, IRON, ILNP
or whatever for five or ten years.

I overdid my RRG efforts earlier this year and now have to concentrate
on paying work.  So I can't volunteer to write this up as an RFC - or
promise to do substantial work on Ivip in the foreseeable future.


> Myself, I am pretty much indifferent on this.

I don't clearly understand this.


> By reading your referenced former emails about the terms and
> pilosophies of CES versus CEE I halted where you wrote that CEE is
> more DNS-based  (some how).

I don't recall making any such statement - nor do I know what it would
mean.


> TARA would take advantage of either philosophy: A (TARA-)locator would
> be retrieved in addition to the destination IP address from DNS,
> however this locator might be out-of-date e.g. because of roaming. The
> wrong locator however may still have some value: The roaming host
> might still be within the same geopatch or within some neighboring
> geopatch and by means of a well-scoped broadcast message (that starts
> from the ETR denoted by the  wrong locator, the right ETR might be
> searched and determined.
>  
> Will say: TARA bridges this kind of opposition (between CES and CEE).

You have been referring to TARA for years now, as if it is a real
proposal.  You believe you understand it, but as far as I know, no-one
else does.   Other people have documented their proposals to the point
where interested folks can understand them.  You have not done this -
you just keep referring to TARA as if it is substantial and that RRG
people should consider it a real alternative.  But I am sure none of
us have a concrete clue what TARA involves.  I think we only know it
by your frequent analogies to other systems, such as the road system
- which I and I guess other people cannot translate into anything
practical and meaningful regarding routers and packets.

  - Robin