On Nov 30, 2008, at 10:57 PM, Michael Meisel wrote:
Hi all, I've just been catching up, and I've noticed the
reappearance of
a common theme that I think warrants discussion directly -- what
difference we should make, how to do it, and if it's even possible.
Here
are my thoughts on the issue, many pieces of which have been said by
others before me (Tony, Lixia, Christian, Noel, Dave Conrad, and
Brian,
to name a few).
thanks for the credit! :)
though it seems to be quite a distance between what's said this msg
and my thought...
Let me just first focus on your 3 principles below
There are many tiny changes happening constantly in the Internet on a
small scale. These changes have the potential to add up to a radically
different picture sometime down the road, as we've seen happen with
NAT.
So, to have any influence on the network, we should be thinking about
how we can tweak the small changes to push things in a good direction.
I believe this means a focus on three principles:
(1) The network will always be heterogeneous
agree in principle.
but some clarification here would help more: exactly along what/which
dimensions of heterogeneity are you referring to here?
given this msg is about making changes, I interpreted "heterogeneous"
here as measured by different interest, different reactions to any
proposed changes.
(2) Any large change will only happen as the aggregate result of many,
many tiny changes at individual networks and hosts
I am not clear what is the definition of tiny and large here: what are
you measuring?
(3) It's not up to us (or any central authority) which tiny changes
get made
if you are saying the Internet has no boss, then I agree.
But I do believe that it is our job to understand what is driving the
trend, so that we figure out how best to influence or facilitate the
changes.
and just one more thing:
(1) and (2) imply that we should push forward with some
host-based scheme that separates the host's identifier from its
routable
address.
not exactly sure what you meant by "host's identifier" here (e.g. LISP
calls hosts' PI addresses as identifiers, and separate that out of
global routing--is that what you meant here?)
This is orthogonal to ISP-based solutions, and it is bound to
be just what *someone* needs, and could make some difference in the
size
of the routing table.
TO make a difference in routing table size: it may only take the
action of a single or small number of parties to increase the routing
table size; but to remove a prefix from the existing routing table
requires every party, not just some hosts, knowing how to reach that
prefix thru some new way.
Lixia
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
