Hi Tony,
I prefer a tiny but very important adjustment in B1c
Was:
B1c Semi-hierarchical locators are administratively assigned. Local
reconnection during link state changes is accomplished with
rerouting instead of renumbering.
Suggestion:
B1c Semi-hierarchical locators are administratively or automatically
assigned. Local reconnection during link state changes is
accomplished with rerouting instead of renumbering.
My Border Router Discovery Protocol is an example for this adjusted B1c,
there might be more.
I say very important, as it provides basics for multi-homing, ad hoc
operations, multi-path connections, smarter address selection and make-
before-break with wireless links. And no ingress filter problems.
Only major criticisms 3.3.2.3. #1 applies to B1c, and I have
problems with the wording.
Was:
1. This strategy is probably not compatible with UDP or TCP though
B1a/c could be compatible with IPv6's layer 3. The replacement
layer-4/5 protocols should also be coaxable to run on top of
IPv4's layer 3 in the not-yet-upgraded part of the network.
I see no reason why it is not compatible. It must be for obvious reasons.
The problem is automatic renumbering at higher layers and manual configured
addresses. I think this is no showstopper. It is just somewhat difficult
because legacy.
Suggestion:
1. This strategy does probably not provide session continuity for
UDP or TCP though
B1a/c could be compatible with IPv6's layer 3. The replacement
layer-4/5 protocols should also be coaxable to run on top of
IPv4's layer 3 in the not-yet-upgraded part of the network.
My thoughts on strategy A and B in a few words:
A is hiding problems, B is solving problems.
I know the opinions on A and B preferences, no need to repeat them:-)
Thanks, Teco
|-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
|Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens Tony Li
|Verzonden: zaterdag 28 februari 2009 16:55
|Aan: [email protected]
|Onderwerp: [rrg] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-01.txt
|
|
|
|FYI, next rev.
|
|Tony
|
|
||-----Original Message-----
||From: [email protected]
||[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
||[email protected]
||Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 11:00 AM
||To: [email protected]
||Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-01.txt
||
||A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
||directories.
||
||
|| Title : Preliminary Recommendation for a
||Routing Architecture
|| Author(s) : T. Li
|| Filename : draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-01.txt
|| Pages : 15
|| Date : 2009-2-27
||
||It is commonly recognized that the Internet routing and addressing
|| architecture is facing challenges in scalability, multi-homing, and
|| inter-domain traffic engineering. This document reports
||the Routing Research Group's prelimnary findings from its
||efforts towards
|| developing a recommendation for a scalable routing architecture.
||
|| This document is a work in progress.
||
||A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
||http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-
|01.txt
||
||Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
||ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
||
||Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
||implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
||Internet-Draft.
||
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
