In einer eMail vom 24.02.2009 22:05:43 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email protected]:

As  always, other insights into the problem, discussions of  architectural
conclusions that we can clearly draw and other conceptual  items leading to
an architectural proposal are most welcome.  There's  a lot more than could
be in this document outside of just taxonomy (e.g.,  mental question du jour:
do identifiers need to be globally  unique?).






Earlier I gave two answers to above "question du jour" wrt  strategy  C:
While strategy C (TARA) is not yet completely deployed, IPv4 addresses have  
to be globally unique, but not thereafter.
Globally uniqueness of IPv4 addresses is definitively needed for the  
incremental deployment phase.
The reason: The hereby employed router's view of a well  reduced/sparsed 
internet topology will also consist of non-TARA GRE-tunnels  which interconnect 
isolated TARA subnetworks. The computation of  these GRE-tunnels rely on the 
global uniqueness of IPv4.
 
Having said this, I like to ask the following question du jour:
Does jumping ahead with some particular strategy (e.g. with  LISP/ALT) harm 
all the other potential solutions ?
 
Speaking in favor of strategy C, the answer is " Yes, it harms".
Its objective, to reduce the classic BGP tables continuously, means: From  
some point in time a TARA-router should stop disseminating its own user  
reachabilities. Concurrently any other TARA-router will have to do    what is 
called 
default-mapping in ALT: it has to advertise reachability with  prefix length 0 
as to attract IP flows from the non-TARA surrounding.
 
Hence, there is a competition with ALT-routers who do the same. Of course,  
by chance,a TARA-router may be in the way to some ALT-router  -- and vice  
versus.
 
Because I think that ANY strategy needs a concept for incremental  
deployability, i.e. might need  that default-mapping mechanism. It is  indeed a 
pretty 
general and not a ALT-specific mechanism. 
 
IMHO, this aspect should be considered prior voting for  a LISP working group 
in the IETF.
 
So I repeat my question du jour: does LISP/ALT jumping ahead hurt ?
 
Heiner
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

Reply via email to