Hi Xu, Thanks for this pointer in the "HIP, Hip-Proxy etc. (Strategy B)" thread:
>> No-one has proposed HIP or anything related to HIP as an >> actual solution to the routing scaling problem. > > Not ture. RANGI (http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/ietf/rangi.htm) and http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/ietf/ftp/rangi.pdf > (its old version is HRA )is actually an id/locator split proposal > related to HIP. Compared with HIP, RANGI has many differences on > the aspects of ID/locator namespace structures, mapping system and > routing system. I am only vaguely familiar with HIP and I looked only briefly at the above slides, but I suggest that your proposal is not sufficiently like HIP to consider it as part of a HIP discussion. Do you and your colleagues suggest RANGI as the solution, or one of the potential solutions, which the RRG should recommend to the IETF for full-scale development? If so, then I suggest it would be good to write up an Analysis and Summary document and link to it from the RRG wiki. Also, I suggest you either nominate a strategy in Bill's page which it matches: http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures.html or suggest changes to that page so your proposal fits in somewhere. I think it is important that Bill's page covers every proposal which anyone is seriously suggesting the RRG think about. I think this should include any idea for a potential solution, even if its proponents don't think the IETF should start developing it soon. - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
