Re: [rrg] RANGER(S)
HeinerHummel@aol.com Tue, 19 May 2009 19:21 UTC
Return-Path: <HeinerHummel@aol.com>
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 CEF343A6E16 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 May 2009 12:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.251
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
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 G+xyWI53HSUZ for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 May 2009 12:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr-d04.mx.aol.com (imr-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87CCF3A6973 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 19 May 2009 12:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo-da01.mx.aol.com (imo-da01.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.199]) by imr-d04.mx.aol.com (v107.10) with ESMTP id RELAYIN1-24a1306d11e5; Tue, 19 May 2009 15:21:53 -0400
Received: from HeinerHummel@aol.com by imo-da01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v40_r1.5.) id p.be5.5460fad5 (42808); Tue, 19 May 2009 15:21:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: HeinerHummel@aol.com
Message-ID: <be5.5460fad5.374460cb@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 15:21:47 -0400
To: Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com, rrg@irtf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1242760907"
X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5021
X-AOL-IP: 205.188.169.199
Subject: Re: [rrg] RANGER(S)
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: Tue, 19 May 2009 19:21:25 -0000
Fred, one by one, see inside. Heiner In einer eMail vom 19.05.2009 18:35:00 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com: Heiner, > I have never understood either that inter- and intra-domain routing architectures have to be such orthogonal. > So whatever I proposed or supported so far was aiming to a consistent architectural framework, too. > Routing, which is not based on address summarization, would make sense inside of intra-domain-networks as well. Do these other approaches show how they recurse from the Internet core all the way to a singleton node as the limiting factor for recursion – or even to virtual networks within a singleton node? Abjuring the address asummarization paradigm in inter-domain routing, why should I stick to it in intra-domain routing ?:-( However there, the need for a fundamental change isn't as immense. Do the other approaches provide for discovery and utilization of multiple border routers? ... border routers as understood by each individual approach. But the answer is yes. Do they have fully-articulated specifications for automatic EID and RLOC address configuration? There is no need for such things. Do they support multihoming? What a question ! Of course, yes. Provider-independent addressing? PI- and PA- independent addressing, so to speak. IPv6 deployment? Yes, and whatever else. Traffic engineering? It would provide a large meadow for TE, never ever seen before. Secure redirection? promised. Ingress filtering? Given I know the topology and not only 300 000 routes, why should ingress filtering not be possible? Yes, it cannot be done as folks are used to. What about mobility? You'll bet. Without geographical coordinates, mobility wouldn't be. MTU handling for tunnels? Yes, I would also need some outer header, just like LISP. But there is also an alternative: Realization inside layer 2. This would shift the routing archtitecture from IETF to IEEE. Think about it ! Do the other approaches have their base mechanisms widely deployed in shipping implementations for many years, and with many millions of users?_ What if you don't need huge core routers anymore ? Is maturity important to this group? What about completeness? What about going new paths for this group ? Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com ____________________________________ From: HeinerHummel@aol.com [mailto:HeinerHummel@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:31 AM To: Templin, Fred L; rrg@irtf.org Subject: Re: [rrg] RANGER(S) In einer eMail vom 19.05.2009 01:26:57 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com: but in our experience RANGER(S) is the only proposal with a consistent architectural framework that applies recursively in a "network-of-networks" fashion from the global Internet core all the way outward to even the simplest of edge networks. I have never understood either that inter- and intra-domain routing architectures have to be such orthogonal. So whatever I proposed or supported so far was aiming to a consistent architectural framework, too. Routing, which is not based on address summarization, would make sense inside of intra-domain-networks as well. Heiner
- Re: [rrg] RANGER(S) HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] RANGER(S) Templin, Fred L
- Re: [rrg] RANGER(S) HeinerHummel