On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > > |So, it's not that RRG doesn't acknowledge this problem, it's that the > |problem ought to be fixed (to some extent at least) with the work RRG > |is doing? > > > Yes, of course the problem exists, but again, it's more to be fixed within > IDR. BGP is not an architecture; it's a protocol. Protocol changes are in > scope for IDR and architecture changes are in scope for RRG. >
ugh, my wording was unclear, but I think we are agreeing. ok, all done :) > |Surely TE prefixes are issues, but that's not the only source of > |internal route growth... one large one is 'this IP thing, it's kinda > |successful!' (convergence). > > > VPN prefixes are also wholly self-inflicted and have been well discussed as > a scalability issue for a decade or more. No one is required to run VPNs, > so it's also a self-inflicted problem, just as if you decided to run DECnet. > ;-) hrm.. 'self-inflicted'... we could have a long discussion about why this IP thing has been successful, and how, and where it may go in the future, and why things like vpn-routes are perhaps important to that... but, like above, I think we agree that the problem could be fixed with an architecture shift and that's the point of RRG. Apologies for the 7 extra messages about internal/external prefixes and sizing. back to William's paper! -Chris _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
