Re: [rrg] procedural aggregation

William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> Wed, 05 March 2014 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <wherrin@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 240CD1A0642 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:10:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 3uCdHCnZaTiw for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:10:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ve0-x232.google.com (mail-ve0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B08F1A0234 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:10:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ve0-f178.google.com with SMTP id jw12so1238004veb.37 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 08:10:00 -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:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=8NWo06EFDDGIgf8gI3PMSstZieUwNvXC9CTM0oibdOQ=; b=bPzr+KtzgM+P2turRrn5+MJ9pDKaqUVfh4v3Fw+GidMih0O7X+njg9vR4rRgZvsQVr oagBCs0JbueoMjyXgn7Jn7UOqauEocT417YsuSYK4s9gT+2G1/2/rSgfKAhY3jTfM44M yzTlSG3GjIZf+6qZAil+3SmBiA+73ptk3G8jU3L88dSGnZ/dVeVUPD8V+X5z7QR71qxV P2QQEGSulLjoJPTejZidY9/Fv6H9Pgi3mVsHAe/sjmmN9fY0PxCo4Epl+QTw5FUZWQqf oudqTLVps7QhKlplGa53dnRkZbRUFU0EksVKUcVBShN3uVzUqen+qgjY1rA9VNU66vLO oSgg==
X-Received: by 10.58.54.35 with SMTP id g3mr8132vep.46.1394035800717; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 08:10:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: wherrin@gmail.com
Received: by 10.52.38.234 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:09:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <8D106691E2F8808-2798-932B@webmail-d162.sysops.aol.com>
References: <CAP-guGXyxehmCiskATSLOouE0Cx1i9KFroK60r=xWe-Lu7peSA@mail.gmail.com> <8D106691E2F8808-2798-932B@webmail-d162.sysops.aol.com>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:09:40 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: y3fd7A0f0uqreuE4gWJF42ZC1mU
Message-ID: <CAP-guGU4QCHSOnr99hhvksNa8=zm_OZ9bR34HhHv7WCK55sVvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "HeinerHummel@aol.com" <heinerhummel@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rrg/qqjAu8mbdEut_vfEjV8jMpnQvsg
Cc: RRG <rrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [rrg] procedural aggregation
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: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 16:10:06 -0000

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:04 AM, <heinerhummel@aol.com>; wrote:
> IMHO: IPv6 won't get any boost by the IPv4 address expiration.
> But shouldn't that be the most urgent RRG problem ?

Hi Heiner,

The "procedural aggregation" approaches I'll discuss are agnostic
about the IP version number. They work as well (and as poorly) for
both IPv4 and IPv6.

Before I dive in to that, does everybody follow the economics of
Internet routing as presented in my prior message? Can I answer any
questions about how it works?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com  bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004