Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Sat, 10 November 2012 03:55 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
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 B722B21F8CBB for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 19:55:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.466
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3q1zYfYXGmcG for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 19:55:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0702921F8C51 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 19:55:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 1C6FC18C115; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 22:55:15 -0500 (EST)
To: rrg@irtf.org
Message-Id: <20121110035515.1C6FC18C115@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 22:55:15 -0500 (EST)
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation
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: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 03:55:16 -0000

    > From: Scott  Brim <swb@internet2.edu>

    > this group's best accomplishment imho was to understand that and spread
    > the knowledge.

I didn't say the group had produced nothing of value. Clearly, the work on
location/identity was useful.

(Although it is regrettable that the IETF didn't take the concept on board
when RFC-1498 was produced, in 1993, instead of taking almost 20 years to
recognize the necessity of separating location and identity - the Internet
would be a lot further along at this point if it had.)

I just dispute the contention that it produced notable routing work - because
it didn't.


Which means that, since there _are_ needs for improved routing, we're now
going to see the same scenario as I referred to above, with loc-id-sep,
repeated in the area of routing - the IETF taking forever to grudgingly admit
that what one would hope are seemingly obvious improvements are, in fact,
necessary.

The only question is, are we again going to see very long delays before that
happen (perhaps two decades again)?

And better routing is an order of magnitude more complex, technically, than
loc-id-sep. So the pain/cost of upgrading _that_ will be that much greater.

	Noel