IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rrg] procedural aggregation

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 05 March 2014 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 79E051A0247 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:30:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 Drt9QOZCDONr for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:30:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 851A71A0424 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:30:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CBF6241000; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:30:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from dhcp-bd1b.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-bd1b.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.189.27]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A63F7240527; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:30:23 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5317511D.20506@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:30:21 -0500
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>, "HeinerHummel@aol.com" <heinerhummel@aol.com>
References: <CAP-guGXyxehmCiskATSLOouE0Cx1i9KFroK60r=xWe-Lu7peSA@mail.gmail.com> <8D106691E2F8808-2798-932B@webmail-d162.sysops.aol.com> <CAP-guGU4QCHSOnr99hhvksNa8=zm_OZ9bR34HhHv7WCK55sVvw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGU4QCHSOnr99hhvksNa8=zm_OZ9bR34HhHv7WCK55sVvw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rrg/xCJvSM8SDbjnaqwUrcgqdyL7l2E
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 16:30:30 -0000

My understanding is that the packet forwarding paths, and the money 
exchanges, are more complex than the picture you painted.  Your picture 
matches the general theory.  However, I have repeatedly been told that 
the reality does not match that theory.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/5/14, 11:09 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> 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
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email