IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

Dae Young KIM <dykim@cnu.kr> Tue, 13 November 2012 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <dykim6@gmail.com>
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 B75BC21F87EA for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:21:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 She3Wq1CDMly for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:21:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-f182.google.com (mail-qc0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD0E421F87E7 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:21:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id k19so3555069qcs.13 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:21:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=DNheu2iCbbckTXCNjZMetX1d1NI8U2kgxY5OYctBph4=; b=JK0b7jcjADpGcZPRIE2xC8lsV3rBiF4wj/AxHRtfG60+j/X3ZtF06/CAAil+l3cEme YVMgrPsvvPyl9pHvoMwBJaNUfQK7gUdxnFavY5bzp95IR2dOWdNSSWs531dV9PcZdScU KYZSvB23J2lbn349gvEhnsYLqOr8SdPKv2RBsoSlycXSzj33MwYM9b4JrvBt43wtLMov XZl5JazalorXrMeC6ZQZb0jPtEHKXzbuYTcaqlWWYQmdd+S8tFdDzjd1lVcJWQBPlZlZ AR1bA+F5k2oS7FmgFomNWJBzTU6G4Vxe5zFrIC5TyH6NtGDSv3pO5OOU2Z8nyMx/CIys /pxw==
Received: by 10.224.182.12 with SMTP id ca12mr22742058qab.73.1352769714335; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:21:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: dykim6@gmail.com
Received: by 10.49.12.9 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:21:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <2F3EBB88EC3A454AAB08915FBF0B8C7E0D8EAF@EUSAAMB109.ericsson.se>
References: <20121112234012.05F8E18C0CA@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <CAFgODJcP1zvwRJukJdnqjSR-78XAMB1nSxL32gjUQB+NqpgESg@mail.gmail.com> <50A18F75.8060001@joelhalpern.com> <CAFgODJcDAzaYPrWFEJhgeCjnN_M9tdd+pdHTiccd=Dz=1mYrLg@mail.gmail.com> <EC8FD781-E416-4AE6-BA99-F74FE2DDA14D@tony.li> <2F3EBB88EC3A454AAB08915FBF0B8C7E0D8EAF@EUSAAMB109.ericsson.se>
From: Dae Young KIM <dykim@cnu.kr>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:21:34 +0900
X-Google-Sender-Auth: O9UvosKEaIOGPii6i0wZXekb_yI
Message-ID: <CAFgODJf6feRypJ3bzHND6wBmLpXW_UpsFbY5acrnSHAgXh5i3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jakob Heitz <jakob.heitz@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf302ef98a492f8904ce563e72"
Cc: "rrg@irtf.org" <rrg@irtf.org>
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: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:21:55 -0000

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Jakob Heitz <jakob.heitz@ericsson.com>wrote:

> What explosion?
>
> http://ripe63.ripe.net/archives/video/178
> http://ripe63.ripe.net/presentations/61-2011-10-31-bgp2011.pdf
>

OK, the explosion may not be dreadful as we thought in 2006:

  - The IPv4 growth has rounded up.
  - The growth is now with IPv6.
  - The Moor's Law is still saving us.

The RRG charter lists four focus items: scalability, mobility,
multi-homing, and inter-domain traffic engineering.

Then, according to your point, scalability is not an issue anymore...?

How then has LIS improved multi-homing than the status quo? How
significantly has LISP helped inter-domain traffic engineering?

It might help mobility a bit, but as far as connection resilience is
concerned, the same effect could have been met by a session layer; your
session does not break at transient breakage of transport connections.

I do take ILNP as one of the smartest LIS solution; no reservation.

My question is rather why we've indulged in LIS if routing scalability were
not an issue?

-- 
DY

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email