On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 1:50 AM, Robin Whittle <[email protected]> wrote: >> http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures6.html > > The paragraph directly after "Strategy A." is applicable to Ivip. > > A1a. This doesn't seem to apply to any proposal I know of. > > A1b. This applies to Ivip and I guess to LISP, APT and TRRP. > > A1c. I don't clearly understand this.
A1a. the RLOC = the ISP's AS# A1b. Just like A1a except each ISP gets two or three AS#'s that they can use and they sort which GUIDs go under which RLOC and the priority at which each RLOC is announced to each peer to optimize their routing. A1c. Each ISP gets a big block of locators, such as 251.1.0.0 - 251.1.255.255. They don't announce each one to the core; they announce the aggregated set, such as 251.1.0.0/16. I haven't really checked but I suspect most of the proposals these days look like A1c. We can probably reject A1a and A1b on the grounds that A1c has the same or lower implementation price and is obviously better. > A3b. End-user networks are responsible for controlling the > mapping of their EID address space. Each EID prefix I'll add the sentence, "The external analysis element may be under the control of the end-user destination network, the RLOC network or a third party under contract to one of them." > OK, the current A4d is a terse description. Folks will need to refer > to http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/pmtud-frag/ to see how Ivip does > this. I think no other proposal currently incorporates proper I'd prefer "concise," but I guess I'll settle for terse. :) >> A4f. The IPv6 flow label or some other component(s) of the IPv6 header >> are used to contain the RLOC. The flow label is set before the packet >> enters the core. Non-local packets are routed based on the flow label. >> IPv4 is abandoned. > > This, your current A4f, doesn't describe Ivip's Prefix Label > Forwarding at all: http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/ivip6/ > > There is no concept of abandoning IPv4 in this. I'll replace "IPv4 is abandoned" with "Use a different A4 variant for IPv4." > The full RLOC can't fit in the IPv6 header, but 19 bits of it can, > which is sufficient to forward the packet across the DFZ. I don't follow the distinction. If what's in the header gets the packet to the ISP and then the ISP does something internally to move it to it's destination then that number in the header was the RLOC. > A major characteristic of Strategy A your page doesn't mention is > that it can be introduced smoothly, without requiring changes in > hosts. A4a. A4b. Proposals based on e and f may call for deprecating IPv4. Tell you what, if A4c and A4d are the only compatibility variants to survive the rejection phase, I'll add a note to the strategy A description to the effect that host changes are not required. > Ideally, I think, the document you are creating would contain: > > 1 - Fuller descriptions of the proposals, with the appropriate > terminology, ETR, ITR, QSD, PTR, OITRD etc. This terminology only applies to specific strategy-A proposals and only some of them. It does not apply, for example, to Six/One Router. > 2 - Clear labelling of which proposals match which descriptions. That's a job for another document. > 3 - Either a much more fully developed set of critiques, > appraisals etc. than you have at present - or none at all. > The "Major Criticisms" of Strategy A do not apply to Ivip If correct, you're ahead of the game. You're still gonna have to sell it though. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
