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

[Dae Young KIM <[e-mail]>]

I mean you're not:

   '... as if you're going to fix the real problem inside...'

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Dae Young KIM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, Robin,
>
> So, you still don't catch the implication of my model. OK, I'll draft a
> description of the routing scenario that this name/address scheme would
> generate in a few days, to meet to the constraints you raised.
>
> A question before that.
>
> Is the list of constraints already a general consensus of this RRG? Does
> silence mean acceptance? You say like this is a firm consensus whatsoever,
> but I don't think I remember there's been any explicit statement like that.
> If you will, would you ask the RRG chairs put your constraint at the
> beginning of the proposal lists so that it be taken as an absolute basis? Or
> have I missed something already done in that manner?
>
> For example, your 3rd constraint says:
>
>   3 - Therefore, the solution must be compatible with
>       all hosts (stacks and applications) and routers
>       in non-upgraded networks.
>
> So, you're asking compatibility with all non-upgraded hosts and routers,
> don't you? It looks to me as if you're going to fix the real problem inside.
> Just patching on it. You're going to inject more drug into the body or an
> extra artificial organ beside the real problem area.
>
> Or your wording comes to me as if you were asking to cut flesh without
> spilling a drop of blood. I'm already chocking.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Robin Whittle <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi DY,
>>
>> There's a long history of theoretical discussion about routing in the
>> RRG.  Your last two messages were highly theoretical.
>>
>> Do you have a proposal for solving the routing scalability problem?
>>
>> If so, does it involve changes to host operating systems and/or
>> applications?  Would your proposal be at odds with any other of these
>> constraints which arise from the need for voluntary adoption?
>>
>>  http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/RRG-2009/constraints/
>>
>> If you have a proposal, please describe it in more concrete terms,
>> with examples etc.
>>
>> There are many ways of designing a global network which has no
>> routing scalability problems.  Our task is to provide a fix for
>> today's Internet - the IPv4 Internet, and for the IPv6 Internet so
>> that the same scaling problems won't occur if and when it is widely
>> used.  We can't force people to adopt anything, though there is some
>> scope for altering IPv6 before anyone starts using it on a
>> large-scale for general public use.
>>
>> This task has been likened to converting a propeller-driven passenger
>> aircraft into a modern passenger jet - while it is flying.
>>
>> However this analogy does not depict the constraints imposed by the
>> need for widespread voluntary adoption - adoption which will
>> typically be motivated by immediate benefits and not by concern about
>> scalability.
>>
>> As with the aircraft analogy, the process of change needs to occur
>> with the network fully operating - so existing addressing and
>> protocols to hosts, and many other things, need to function normally
>> during and after the changes.
>>
>> Some people seem to think it is good enough to solve IPv6's scaling
>> problems and then wait for the billion-plus users to migrate from
>> IPv4.  I don't accept this because no-one has been able to convince
>> me that this mass adoption and therefore non-reliance on IPv4 will
>> happen any time in the foreseeable future.
>>
>> If your proposal doesn't alter host requirements at the operating
>> system or application level - for all IPv4 hosts operating today -
>> and if it has a chance of meeting the other constraints due to the
>> need for voluntary adoption, I will attempt to understand and discuss it.
>>
>> If you don't have a proposal, perhaps you could critique the most
>> prominent proposals:
>>
>>   LISP   http://www.lisp4.net
>>   APT    http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~meisel/apt-rrg.pdf<http://www.cs.ucla.edu/%7Emeisel/apt-rrg.pdf>
>>   Ivip   http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~meisel/apt-rrg.pdf<http://www.cs.ucla.edu/%7Emeisel/apt-rrg.pdf>
>>   TRRP   http://bill.herrin.us/network/trrp-rrg.pdf
>>
>> all of which I think could meet the 7 absolute constraints imposed by
>> voluntary adoption, and would work with both IPv4 and IPv6.
>>
>>  - Robin
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> DY
> http://cnu.kr/~dykim <http://cnu.kr/%7Edykim>
>



-- 
Regards,

DY
http://cnu.kr/~dykim