Subject: RE: comments on draft-py-multi6-gapi-00.txt

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 16:43:19 -0800

> marcelo bagnulo wrote:
> I guess this is how MHAP uses GAPI. Geographic Identifiers.

Absolutely, although it is nice to have GFN as a parachute.

Michel

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:48:47 -0800

Joe,

> Joe Abley wrote:
> From Kathmandu, Nepal, traffic to India travels to Singapore
> by satellite, across the pacific to the US, across the US,
> across the Atlantic, up to another satellite, and down to
> India. Packets go round the world once and into space twice,
> despite the fact that Nepal and India share a geopolitical
> border.

"Scenic routing" is what we call it. This is very true, but the draft
does not make any assumptions on fiber plant or backbone topology, nor
about where IXs are located nor what the aggregation mechanism is (or if
it does, please quote specifics).

Michel.

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 09:47:25 -0800

> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I can't disagree with the assertion that *if* we start
> handing out PI prefixes, a loosely geographical or
> metro-based solution is probably better than random
> numbers.

Anything is better than random numbers. Even if the geographical
aggregation brings only a reduction in half of the routing table, that
would be a gain.

And *if* we need to go that way, it would then make sense to limit the
initial allocation to ASN holders as per Pekka's idea, but out of an
addressing plan that has some aggregation potential.

> But until we actually know how PI prefixes are going
> to become routeable without creating a swamp, I'd
> rather sit on my hands.

Agree.

Michel.

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 19:01:03 -0800

Brian,

> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Can't we just accept that only a two-layer solution that
> separates identfier-addresses from locator-addresses can
> solve this puzzle, and move on to figure out the two-layer
> solution?

I would not mind at all! 8-)))))

However, looking pragmatically at the situation may put a grain of salt
into this.

First, I will point out that this WG has not produced jack since its
inception. A year ago, when I was whining about deadlines and asking how
many YEARS behind schedule we needed to be before someone finally sticks
their head out of their @55, I was labeled "hysteric". Well, 12 more
months have passed and we still are nowhere. Kudos to Joe Abley for
trying, but no cigar for the WG.

AS of today, this WG is not even looking at solutions; I don't see how
it could make the decision to move on studying ID/LOC solutions out of
the blue.

I think this is beside the point anyway. When, less than a year ago, out
of frustration about this WG not going anywhere, I founded ipv6mh, the
temptation of making it a MHAP-only list was great. Instead, I chose the
path to open it to host solutions and to solutions close to PI such as
GFN. In the past year, I have mostly worked on anything but my own
draft, and I don't regret it. We have produced GAPI and there are ideas
in it that came from the GFN part that will benefit MHAP. The way ipv6mh
works is that we look at multiple solutions, cannibalize the parts we
like and try to do something with them. Not including some solutions
might make us miss something.

Michel.

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 00:35:43 +0100

On vrijdag, feb 7, 2003, at 14:03 Europe/Amsterdam, Brian E Carpenter 
wrote:

>> I'm still waiting for examples of significant internet use with no 
>> local OR regional interconnection.

>> Not that any of this is of practical importance with regard to the
>> decisions we are facing.

> On the contrary, it all illustrates that there are very limited
> economic forces driving the topology towards geographically-based
> interconnects.

Ok. Suppose the unthinkable happens and all major networks decide to 
interconnect in just a single location. Let's also suppose the number 
of multihomers has inflated the routing table to about 10 times the 
size a router can handle. This can still be solved as per the 
provider-internal aggregation draft by simply installing 10 routers 
that all handle 1/10th of the routing table. In this case, the 
geographic component buys us nothing. But it doesn't hurt, either.

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:19:37 -0800

>> Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
>> Current useage?

> Michel Py wrote:
> Completely meaningless. In another window, I am discussing
> teaching arrangements in China. If you base on current usage,
> China would get 1/100th of what they need at some point. This
> is not the right thing to do.

Based on what? Population, maybe?

Michel.