IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rrg] Rebooting the RRG

Tony Li <tli@pi-coral.com> Sun, 17 November 2013 18:12 UTC

Return-Path: <tli@pi-coral.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DF2D11E8106 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:12:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y2dcJYkSaByO for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:12:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-f50.google.com (mail-pb0-f50.google.com [209.85.160.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA8D511E8F3E for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:12:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id xb12so5680738pbc.23 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:12:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=OzSk5TGv3uqkzn7JbpNE2moUJVkMKV1npA4sdw+0UXg=; b=PpnJmzQeckBjHmA0AZDtmyUImNpJbiPrYpD4wsaDZm8gylkWo9xfI63xA1R0ZZOcCI hmoHgc4x/zG5jU31/ij8spI4/0OA9yIf1QJXhK5iLg5T2UJ0mT1pMcD0E5cx8c51+4hf qtF39Qs7qrPzhLo7DMXZZ3wAd80WDGLyJmnsn+kfYlY1HydeRtpqBhcWbZXYee+04EFK Cla+4UkSFO5EWC2fqjrJEEUAPU5E6CfYgHo3J6D9hhu2awZXqBdyHzequAgDrRAY2VYc Kxn8sE3uSNh0oAv9PlpTgKSifVA4z/XMJmafAOiuWZhiyoUKkQW+F8h65147mFBjH4V1 2oRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnbcw4wSPhUvMqAB59rr65ravHYc+TZwfz/ULz69egELU0WibCDF4vYiQj5m09o/PCnxto8
X-Received: by 10.68.178.68 with SMTP id cw4mr16972849pbc.15.1384711933372; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:12:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.2] (c-69-181-139-254.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [69.181.139.254]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gv10sm12340144pbd.0.2013.11.17.10.12.12 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:12:12 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Tony Li <tli@pi-coral.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D0B1CA286334B8-EC0-1C5DC@webmail-d146.sysops.aol.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:12:11 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B339F343-B607-4F56-A50C-6B2CE37532C4@pi-coral.com>
References: <5B131180-FA93-4A05-B3BE-3A23767EBD9D@netapp.com> <CAPv4CP_xs0Ki4Ada-CrBQftwtSfWVEK8gxohKTHEMHAEHP9s_A@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1rcXJzOC=tTqbCUK7i7a62vbiEyC9UCWLi0XvsXv8fW4qQ@mail.gmail.com> <FD7BEAB9-F967-4788-BBCA-6E06FBE585A8@tony.li> <CAPv4CP_tNAbE0MbY=kLPuNTdpnLkQ5ia7N=z_ibXfBqsVTXcAA@mail.gmail.com> <A61A0825-AE59-4442-85F7-6953E2487C8B@netapp.com> <8D0B1CA286334B8-EC0-1C5DC@webmail-d146.sysops.aol.com>
To: heinerhummel@aol.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 09:04:20 -0800
Cc: rrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] Rebooting the RRG
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/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: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:07:39 -0000

On Nov 17, 2013, at 8:35 AM, heinerhummel@aol.com wrote:

> When RRG was launched the driving force was the so-called scalability problem.
> Currently the biggest issue is the expiration of available IPv4 addresses.
> That however would be a non-issue if the FQDN were mapped to {IPv4 addr of destination user; locator of ETR} in a single strike based on DNS while taking care that IPv4 addresses of the same locator were mutually unique.
> LISP-DDT neither does so now, nor would be able to do so ever. Hence IPv4's lifetime is up to NAT as long as solutions like LISPv2.0 or my TARA are discarded/ignored. There are much more knowledgable folks around who know the disadvantages of the NAT sinfall better than myself. I can only add one disadvantage: With a network layer based on TCP (NAT) you can never enable Multicast with a roaming sender.
> 
> I think this IPv4-depletion issue is the most urgent problem at all.


Is that a routing problem?

Tony

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email