Short version: Does anyone agree with Eliot's view?
"... our scaling problem is NOT with enterprise
networks, but with home and personal networks."
I don't. I think that we should aim for a single
solution to be attractive to end-user networks
from universities and corporations to DSL-connected
SOHO users.
While renumbering for such small networks is a lot
easier than for corporate networks, unless there
are no other alternatives, I don't support the
scaling problem being solved just for "small"
networks, however defined, or differently for
"small" and "large" networks.
Hi Eliot,
You wrote:
> I regret that I do not have time these days to read through more than
> your short version,
That's fine. The title said it all. I still haven't read your paper:
http://tprcweb.com/files/Lehr%20Vest%20Lear%20Internet%20Address%20TPRC%208_15_08.pdf
and I have a substantial message from Ran to respond to.
> but I generally agree with your design assumption.
OK. My "design assumption" is that since we can't move to a
completely new set of protocols which would free us from the
requirement that IP addresses be generally stable, and that since
renumbering is a major upheaval for the network, and cannot be
reliably, securely automated that we cannot base a scalable routing
solution on "routine renumbering" of end-user networks.
My belief, argument, assumption or whatever is based on things which
I think can never change as long as we use the current protocols -
which is itself something I think we cannot change in any time frame
relevant to the routing scalability problem.
> This is not to say that I don't hope for better.
OK. I understand that you hope that things will get better - the
same things I am sure are completely unchangeable. Hope is one
thing, but we would need to be pretty confident that such major
changes could be achieved soon if we were to base a routing
scalability solution on them.
> DHCP prefix delegation is a good step in the right direction,
> particularly for SMB & home networks.
I am not sure what "SMB" means in this context.
> I've consistently said that our scaling problem is NOT with
> enterprise networks, but with home and personal networks.
I don't recall you or anyone else arguing this - and I don't agree
with it.
I recognise that in the future, the numeric growth in multihomed
end-user networks will numerically be in many small networks which
exist now - which currently are not multihomed, due to the very high
costs of doing so with current BGP techniques.
Now we are discussing scalable routing again, I understand from this
that you think there could be two different solutions for "large"
and "small" networks, however defined - or perhaps that no solution
is needed for "large" networks.
> In those latter two cases I hold out more hope. If enterprise
networks
> were merely a 2^6 exception, we would be in good shape.
I don't understand your last sentence.
While I wouldn't completely rule out different scaling solutions for
radically different sizes and types of networks, I have argued that
we should try to find a single solution which works equally well,
and is highly attractive, for networks of all sizes, from university
and corporate networks to single homes and offices currently
dangling from a DSL line.
Map-encap space only for small end-users? PI space prices
http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg00454.html 2008-02-22
If there were two solutions, or no solution for "larger" networks,
then those smaller organisations which aim to be large will tend to
adopt the "large" solution (if there is one) from the outset.
While I agree that the task of renumbering a network with a single
public address via a DSL service is easy compared to renumbering a
university network, I think we should aim for a single solution for
all such end-user networks. If it is attractive to all types of
end-user networks, then there will be one less question to debate
about whether or not to adopt it.
- Robin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
