Hi Robin,
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.
Let's not conflate the problem with the solution. By problem I mean
that whatever number of enterprises are multihomed can and should be
dwarfed by the number of home users and small/medium businesses (SMBs)
in the timeframes we're discussing. Whether the solution fits both is a
separate discussion. Ideally you want one, but sometimes the best
approach is a short menu.
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.
And I agree. I do not see this happening in even the medium term.
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.
There are many reasons why I buy into the above design assumption. As
someone else wrote, many of the problems are not with protocols but both
in implementation and also with the trust model of DNS.
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.
What I am saying is that if we had 2^6 enterprise networks announcing,
using BGP, we could survive and survive well. We can debate about the
2^6 #, of course.
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.
This very much depends on the upgrade paths available from one to
another. If it's easy to go from small to large solutions, or if the
cost of going to a large solution is very high no matter what you're
using, then I would think small organizations would start small.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
