Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

Scott Brim <swb@internet2.edu> Sat, 10 November 2012 03:40 UTC

Return-Path: <swb@internet2.edu>
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 9D13621F84DD for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 19:40:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 C5aFI31rK9K3 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 19:40:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from int-proxy02.merit.edu (int-proxy02.merit.edu [207.75.116.231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A67BB21F84CD for <rrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 19:40:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by int-proxy02.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78467120458; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 22:40:06 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at int-proxy02.merit.edu
Received: from int-proxy02.merit.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (int-proxy02.merit.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BWz2mWdMI8oA; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 22:40:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from int-mailstore01.merit.edu (int-mailstore01.merit.edu [10.108.1.232]) by int-proxy02.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 128A026802E; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 22:40:05 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 22:40:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <irmeytv1oqionmsthrnwy69t.1352518801462@email.android.com>
From: Scott Brim <swb@internet2.edu>
To: Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.2.1_GA_2790 (MobileSync - Android/4.1.2-EAS-1.3)
Cc: 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: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 03:40:08 -0000

Well, this will be fun. Yes Noel, you're right, this group didn't produce any routing revolutions, and loc/id separation is about problems on the identity function side, not routing ... but this group's best accomplishment imho was to understand that and spread the knowledge. 

Now I'll go back to doing good things with higher layer identities.  Ciao.

Scott

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:

    > From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>

    > The publication of these RFCs concludes our long standing work item on
    > a revised routing architecture.

Separation of location and identity is very desirable, but it has basically
nothing to do with routing (other than removing identity functionality from
the names used for routing, making them a bit more tractable).

We still have the same old kludgy BGP global routing system we always had,
and _nothing_ has been proposed to improve/replace it.

    > The group has ... helped push the boundaries of routing farther
    > forward.

Nonsense. It has produced no routing work at all.

	Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg