Re: [rrg] Constraints due to the need for widespread voluntary adoption

[Robin Whittle <[e-mail]>]

Hello Heiner,

Thanks for this:

> I agree with all your "must be's" (btw you also enlists some
> non-requirement statements).
>  
> But why do you want to postpone considering MIP ?

I don't - its just that the voluntary adoption question only applies
to fixed networks which can, in principle, get multihoming,
portability and TE in an unscalable fashion by getting PI space and
advertising it in the DFZ.  We need firstly to have most of those
networks voluntarily choose the scalable solution and secondly make
the scalable solution amenable to a much larger number of generally
smaller networks which don't have the resources to use the current
BGP system, even if there was no scaling problem.

I do have a mobility approach which is based on a core-edge
separation scheme such as LISP, APT or Ivip.  It doesn't involve any
new namespaces or new types of addresses.  There's no way cell-phone
users would have the resources to non-scalably achieve mobility,
using their own PI prefix, so the voluntary adoption question doesn't
arise for mobile use of the core-edge separation scheme.

I have never been able to understand what you keep mentioning about
geographic mapping, or "location-namespace" etc.  Can you give a
practical explanation of how it would work, with a different thread
subject than this one?

How would your system enable non-upgraded hosts or upgraded hosts in
non-upgraded networks communicate with the devices using your system?
 This is my question 3:

  http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/RRG-2009/constraints/

How would traffic using your system traverse the DFZ?  This is my
question 6.

  - Robin