marcelo bagnulo braun allegedly wrote on 02 16 2009 2:47 AM: > Hi Scott, > > Scott Brim escribió: >> A few thoughts on this quick draft: >> >> Pure higher-layer approaches aren't acceptable: >> >> - We knew that already, for operational reasons other than >> renumbering, for example the shim6 argument. >> > > what is the shim6 argument?
The argument that took place between the IETF and network operators when shim6 was recommended. >> - But that doesn't mean those technologies aren't essential, because >> even if an endpoint only has a single locator within a domain, >> both endpoints and networks will be multihomed and/or mobile, so >> they will at least appear to have multiple locators in global >> routing. Shim6, HIP, SCTP, Multipath ... all are potentially very >> useful. It's probably outside of the scope of RRG since they do >> nothing to solve routing scaling, > > what do you mean they do nothing to solve the routing scalability? > If every site and host uses only PA addresses, the routing system would > scale in the order of ISPs, reducing the contribution by the multihomed > sites. But that won't happen, because it requires site renumbering, multiple locators per host within a domain, extra policy management and so on -- the things we discovered were operational showstoppers. The host-based mechanisms are vitally important but not as solutions to routing problems. Scott _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
