Subject: Re: Draft of updated WG charter

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:57:09 -0500 (EST)

> From: Jay Ford <[email-masked]>

    > boils down to the issue of hosts having multiple addresses. That
    > decision precipitated the rest of this

Exactly! An excellent summary, couldn't have put it better myself.

Now, all you need to do is understand why multiple addresses are an
inevitable consequence of the fact that we can't realistically call for the
deployment of an entire new routing architecture as part of the Multi6
solution.

Failing that, the only workable approach *within the current routing
architecture* is overlapping naming abstractions, which are (looked at from
the direction of the hosts, as opposed to from the routing) multiple
addresses.

	Noel

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:07:24 -0800

Noel,

]>  Now, all you need to do is understand why multiple addresses are an
>  deployment of an entire new routing architecture as part of the Multi6

yup.

>  the direction of the hosts, as opposed to from the routing) multiple

Among the HIP, LIN6, MAST, NOID, TCP-MH, SCTP, DCCP, etc. schemes, which do you 
count as having overlapping naming abstractions and which do you not?

d/
--
Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://brandenburg.com>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:31:25 +0100

So far, nobody has come to multi6 with a proposal based on changes to
inter-domain routing. Absent any such proposal, we won't be working
on this approach. So the challenge to people who think there is an
IDR-based option is clear. Until then, I suggest we don't waste our
time discussing it.

Actually, we don't have any proposals based on any kind of change to
routing algorithms, as far as I can see. 

So let's discuss the proposals we do have, not those we don't have, OK?

   Brian
   co-chair

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <[email-masked]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:29:29 +0100

> routing algorithms, as far as I can see.

I proposed aggregation based on geography inside service provider  
networks a while ago. I still think this is a useful approach, but I  
observed a decided lack of consensus in this area...

The draft just expired but it's still available at  
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-van-beijnum-multi6-isp-int- 
aggr-01.txt for those interested.

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:55:51 +0100

> So let's discuss the proposals we do have, not those we don't have, OK?

Actually to underline what Brian said in his mail after this. If you 
have more ideas on a solution, this is the time to submit the -00 
draft. Not to reopen discussions....

- - kurtis -

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:33:26 +0200 (EET)

> routing algorithms, as far as I can see. 

There have been a few, but they typically propose changes to the 
policy, rather than the algorithms.

Michel Py's MHAP deploys a new inter-domain mapping/rewriting system.
This has been stale for a while.

Masataka Ohta's, e2e architecture calls for a drastic reduction of DFZ 
size, requiring policy changes.

My ASN-PI document (which I'm not sure is the right thing to do) 
proposes a method for bigger and older organizations to get PI space.

The first one is probably a routing-based solution, by all
definitions.  The rest may also be.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:01:47 +0100

> observed a decided lack of consensus in this area...

this is hardly a change of the routing algorithms though.

- - kurtis -

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:06:44 +0100

Right, but I specifically mentioned routing algorithms, not policy,
or local changes in edge routers.

Anyway, as Kurtis said, it's time for drafts.

  Brian

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:10:50 +0100

> this is hardly a change of the routing algorithms though.

Isn't it? BGP doesn't have a set algorithm. My proposal certainly 
changes the way in which BGP routers handle routing information, even 
though it does so through the use of filters and policy hooks rather 
than by changing code.

Iljitsch

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:15:34 +0100

> though it does so through the use of filters and policy hooks rather 

I think we are drifting a bit of topic :-) When I read Brians mail I 
took at as meaning a new algorithm, or doing something else than 
path-vector, etc. In that sense geo based routing is no change. But 
let's leave it here, or take it private.

- - kurtis -

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:32:44 +0100

On 12-jan-04, at 10:15, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

> I think we are drifting a bit of topic :-)

Wow, that has never happened before!

> When I read Brians mail I

As there was no support for this proposal and we discussed it 
extensively a while ago, I'm not going to submit it again unless there 
are others who think I should.

In the mean time, I'll be happy to answer questions about this in 
private email.

Iljitsch