Here is my attempt to state which proposals match the various parts of Bill's page (Draft 6):
http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures.html I have no idea how to match the Strategy B variants to various proposals, so I hope someone will clarify this. Likewise D and E. Please suggest corrections and I will write up a final version at: http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/rrgarch/ - Robin Strategy A These are core-edge separation schemes, with the new functionality being implemented in the network (in or near DFZ, ISP and end-user CE routers, but also for internal routers for Ivip forwarding approaches). Will work with existing hosts (except that Ivip forwarding and PMTUD management won't accept fragmentable packets longer than a certain size.) LISP in all its variants. APT. Ivip. TRRP. Six/One Router (for IPv6 only). A paper arguing for this class of solutions (core-edge separation) and against the "elimination" class (Strategy B) is: Towards a Future Internet Architecture: Arguments for Separating Edges from Transit Core Dan Jen, Lixia Zhang, Lan Wang, Beichuan Zhang http://conferences.sigcomm.org/hotnets/2008/papers/18.pdf A1a, A1b, A1c. I am not sure about these. Bill and I are discussing them: http://www.irtf.org/pipermail/rrg/2008-December/000591.html I also discuss potential improvements to the parts which describe Ivip's forwarding approaches. A2a LISP-NERD. A2b Ivip and APT are covered by this, but it is not a complete description of either. A2c LISP-ALT and TRRP. Where is Six/One Router covered? It doesn't have a specific mapping distribution system, but I guess A2c is a likely approach. A3a LISP, APT, TRRP and Six/One Router. A3b Ivip. A4a No proposals I can think of match this. A4b Likewise. A4c I am not sure, but this might apply to the PMTUD approaches of LISP, APT and TRRP. AFAIK, LISP has no such approach. I am not sure how APT or TRRP will handle it. Six-One router and Ivip's forwarding modes have no PMTUD problems. A4d Ivip. A4e Six/One Router (IPv6 only). A4f Ivip's Prefix Label Forwarding (PLF) - for IPv6. A4g Ivip's ETR Address Forwarding (EAF) - for IPv4. A5a AFAIK, this applies to all of this class of proposal: LISP, APT, Ivip, TRRP and Six/One Router. A5b } I don't know of any proposal which matches these. A5c } Strategy B This is (roughly, exactly?) the elimination class of proposals. This requires new host functions, including AFAIK, changes to host stacks, APIs and applications. No-one is suggesting such a solution for IPv4 - they are all modifications to IPv6, I think. ILNP is one such proposal, I think. HIP may be another. However neither of these is fully documented as a solution to the routing scaling problem. Can anyone confirm this or suggest other proposals? Can anyone write about B1x and B2x with respect to actual proposals? Strategy C Geographic aggregation. Heiner Hummel has been proposing this for at least a year - but there is no substantial documentation of this or any other such proposal. Compact routing perhaps? See critique: On Compact Routing for the Internet Dmitri Krioukov, kc claffy, Kevin Fall, Arthur Brady ACM SIGCOMM CCR, v.37, n.3, p.41-52, 2007 http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2309 Strategy D FIB compression for DFZ routers. What proposals match this? Strategy E Billing system for advertising each prefix in the DFZ. Have there been any such proposals? AFAIK, none have been suggested seriously in RAWS, the RAM list or the RRG. Strategy F NOP. Strategy G The original vision of IPv6, with hope that those who wanted to multihome would get two or more ISPs and use SHIM6. (But this is IPv-6 only, offers network operators no obvious network-centric controls - and only works if the other host has SHIM6 too.) _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
