Lixia Zhang wrote: > > 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.
Right, that's what I meant by it. >> (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? An example of a tiny change would be something like a tweak to a router configuration, or an OS upgrade on a single end host. An example of a large change would be moving the whole network to IPv6. >> (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. Right, I think we're in agreement here, we just stated it a bit differently -- when you say influencing and facilitating changes, I think you mean what I meant when I said developing and promoting new tools. > 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?) No, I meant we should push forward with some scheme that introduces another layer of indirection in the host stack. I wasn't using "identifier" in the LISP sense of the word. -Michael >> 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 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
