Re: [rrg] Rebooting the RRG

Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Tue, 19 November 2013 13:47 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.brim@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F4BF1ADFC1 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:47:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 78OgV-O0ZUpu for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:47:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22c.google.com (mail-ob0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7041C1ADFA8 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:47:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f172.google.com with SMTP id gq1so3518374obb.3 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:47:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=gVEfOvPiZOF/CAmNgq77dtjHOEhwYNdT2ez4Oidq4Q4=; b=RyWv5rinnpe5dsFQKfX9wyX4tB9pFBoU6YRsjy82Z0dtwPwtGlPg/bJ/TVwyr1XSDk q+1oKdIv7bjSed4x6ubKsGmLwr1P2HvWWZrF91bVOwUehTTYTsTHfxPTIWBZOyhGxTGS IDFx0wfBJLtFk5+eFTvk3yICO6y0T0Q1sbR4jICTcSN3OsDo8pG99hZt20F40VDWUW+7 BgtG6iQsuQU5RwvZbD5WZmuXftdI6BGgGMrBDMfWAYBjAG4d8N20U6dO1VOJyqojn4fL t8vPsZQJ9Fud8WevBAyzm1k2WGQvc92NO/vxicaV5hJyxfeSNLraeGbTIr5c81usNm5f +UQA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.142.229 with SMTP id rz5mr25081254obb.12.1384868848294; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:47:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.48.9 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:47:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.48.9 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:47:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <8D0B2BFB267CEAF-186C-2ABB2@webmail-d250.sysops.aol.com>
References: <5B131180-FA93-4A05-B3BE-3A23767EBD9D@netapp.com> <CAPv4CP_xs0Ki4Ada-CrBQftwtSfWVEK8gxohKTHEMHAEHP9s_A@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1rcXJzOC=tTqbCUK7i7a62vbiEyC9UCWLi0XvsXv8fW4qQ@mail.gmail.com> <FD7BEAB9-F967-4788-BBCA-6E06FBE585A8@tony.li> <CAPv4CP_tNAbE0MbY=kLPuNTdpnLkQ5ia7N=z_ibXfBqsVTXcAA@mail.gmail.com> <A61A0825-AE59-4442-85F7-6953E2487C8B@netapp.com> <8D0B1CA286334B8-EC0-1C5DC@webmail-d146.sysops.aol.com> <B339F343-B607-4F56-A50C-6B2CE37532C4@pi-coral.com> <8D0B2BFB267CEAF-186C-2ABB2@webmail-d250.sysops.aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:47:28 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPv4CP_WDJ7OG_jgXx1MqOE-8dMNr9UFFf3hpwfAkJMg136O2A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
To: heinerhummel@aol.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c362e6c3615504eb87e7f4
Cc: IRTF Routing RG <rrg@irtf.org>, Tony Li <tli@pi-coral.com>
Subject: Re: [rrg] Rebooting the RRG
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 19 Nov 2013 13:47:37 -0000

Heiner, the IETF has said it doesn't want to come up with any more clever
ways to help organizations continue to squeeze more life out of IPv4
addresses. It will help with transition away from IPv4. Thus IPv4 address
depletion isn't a favored topic, and neither is making significant changes
to Internet routing and/or addressing architecture in response. I suspect
that ideas for routing multiple namespaces efficiently could be worth
considering, but I would generalize it beyond just IPv4 and IPv6.  What
else could you route?

Scott
On Nov 18, 2013 4:54 PM, <heinerhummel@aol.com>; wrote:

> Certainly - though the times are gone when routing and addressing where
> identical, i.e. when my means of the next dialled digit the next-hop trunk
> was selected electro-mechanically.
> Just compare TARA-now (
> http://www.igi-global.com/chapter/topology-aggregating-routing-architecture-tara/77501 )
> and the long expired draft-hummel-tara-00:
> I once had the same idea like Fuller  to  disseminate a prefix of length
> zero, so that a TARA-router closest to the ingress could attract traffic,
>  then prepend a TARA-header as to do TARA-forwarding to some TARA-ETR. But
> it was necessary to sacrifice this nice idea. Instead it is more important
> to involve the user side and
> have  FQDN mapped to {IPv4; TARA-locator} by one single action. The gain:
> tons and tons of available IPv4-addresses.
>
>  All has to be taken into consideration. Whereas the LISP-supporters say
> "hey, addressing is not our problem; we just deal with the scalability
> issue".
> Well, if you want to help IPv4, both issues must be of concern, and the
> address depletion is even the more serious issue, isn't it?
>
>  Heiner
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-----
> Von: Tony Li <tli@pi-coral.com>;
> An: heinerhummel <heinerhummel@aol.com>;
> Cc: lars <lars@netapp.com>;; rrg <rrg@irtf.org>;
> Verschickt: So, 17 Nov 2013 7:12 pm
> Betreff: Re: [rrg] Rebooting the RRG
>
>
> On Nov 17, 2013, at 8:35 AM, heinerhummel@aol.com wrote:
>
> > When RRG was launched the driving force was the so-called scalability problem.
> > Currently the biggest issue is the expiration of available IPv4 addresses.
> > That however would be a non-issue if the FQDN were mapped to {IPv4 addr of
> destination user; locator of ETR} in a single strike based on DNS while taking
> care that IPv4 addresses of the same locator were mutually unique.
> > LISP-DDT neither does so now, nor would be able to do so ever. Hence IPv4's
> lifetime is up to NAT as long as solutions like LISPv2.0 or my TARA are
> discarded/ignored. There are much more knowledgable folks around who know the
> disadvantages of the NAT sinfall better than myself. I can only add one
> disadvantage: With a network layer based on TCP (NAT) you can never enable
> Multicast with a roaming sender.
> >
> > I think this IPv4-depletion issue is the most urgent problem at all.
>
>
> Is that a routing problem?
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> rrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
>
>