Re: [rrg] Proposals which match rrgarchitectures.html pls check thepage

[Robin Whittle <[e-mail]>]

Short version:     I need help in deciding which existing proposals
                   (including those not really discussed much in the
                   RRG) - if any - fit Strategy B.

                   Is ProxyShim6 a scalable routing proposal?  If so
                   does it really fit Strategy B, or is a new
                   classification needed?

Hi Marcelo,

Thanks very much for this:

> Shim6 does not requires changes in the APIs nor in the applications.
> So under the definition included in the page, SHIM6 is not a strategy B
> proposal.. Second, i certainly don't agree with the statement that shim6
> does not provides multihoming.

OK - I agree.  Perhaps the objections to Shim6 in terms of it being a
scalable routing solution, in addition to it not being helpful for
IPv4, include:

  1 - It is host-based rather than router based.  (Questions of
      where it is implemented and where it is controlled and
      monitored from.)

  2 - It provides no portability - networks still need to renumber
      when choosing a new ISP.  Renumbering is still disruptive
      and expensive, including due to the appearance of IP addresses
      in various places inside and outside the network which are not
      amenable to secure automatic changes.

  3 - Problems with maintaining ACLs in other networks for hosts
      using SHIM6.

  4 - Need for both hosts to support Shim6, when it is still being
      developed and is not widely deployed.


> In addition, i think ProxyShim6 is likely to fit in a strategy B proposal.

Ahh, I see that your I-D:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bagnulo-pshim6-02

includes a list of problems with Shim6 which mentions points 1 and 2
above.

A quick scan of the I-D makes me think that it doesn't match Bill's
text:

   "GUID to LOC maps are pushed from the host towards a distributed
    registry as they change. Hosts request and temporarily cache
    individual mappings from the registry as needed."?

Are you suggesting that ProxyShim6 is, or is an important part of, a
solution to the IPv6 routing scaling problem?

If so, then I suggest it would be good to write up a summary and
analysis document and add a link to it from the RRG wiki.  (See:
http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2007/msg00908.html .)  Also, does it really
fit Strategy B or should Bill make a new strategy to match it?


> Finally, there are tons of geo aggregation proposals, since Deering's
> metro addressing, IXP based addressing, Iljitsch geo addressing.

I have updated the page from version 00 to 01.  The start of the page
tells how to see the older versions.  At the end of the page is a
Loose Ends and Discussion section.

Here are the changes:

Deleted this mention of SHIM6 from Strategy B and retained its
mention in Strategy G.

Added to the Loose Ends and Discussion section some queries about
whether ILNP or HIP really match Bill's description.  For instance,
do they involve a mapping system, to match: "GUID to LOC maps are
pushed from the host towards a distributed registry as they change.
Hosts request and temporarily cache individual mappings from the
registry as needed."?

Linked to this message regarding the status of ProxyShim6.

  - Robin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg