Hello, On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 17:54 -0600, William Herrin wrote: > To succeed, we want our plans to speak > to folks who for a reasonable investment can expect to improve their > strategic position. > ISPs are the losers in the routing scalability problem. This is just a > cost to them, and most of the solutions ask them to spend more money > now so they can -hopefully- spend less later. They can be expected to > offer miserly resources towards change. >
Okay, but the scalability pressure will force the affected ISPs to act in some way, however miserly. So we could focus on giving them a good option that will lead to a scalable Internet. This would come in the form of an ISP-based scalability solution. > Small multihomed entities and maybe also mobile users are the winners > in a routing scalability solution. These are the folks who will show > excitement and pony up the cash if we find a solution that does > something they want. But the incentive to deploy for hosts(multihoming options and mobility) is not to solve the problem(routing scalability). Thus, what happens if the routing tables grow too big for some ISPs to handle before enough hosts adopt whatever host-based solution we propose? With ISP-based solutions, we can allow those that suffer from routing table bloat to relieve that suffering through deployment of the new game. The incentive to deploy is exactly to gain relief from the problem. I feel this is an important property for a solution to routing scalability. We have a paper on separation vs. elimination that discusses this very topic. It can be found here: http://conferences.sigcomm.org/hotnets/2008/papers/18.pdf Dan _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
