couple of comments on this draft: the S3.3 Herrin taxonomy highly compresses a lot of options. i can understand the reason for trying to do it very succinctly, however a couple of things might help without decompressing it: [1] some figures to illustrate differences schematically [2] an appendix with some mapping of 'well known rrg protocols' to particular options - ? i disagree with Criticism 1 of strategy E (let economics suppress growth). you say that it needs a central authority system whereby money is transferreed from ISPs announcing prefixes to ISPs running core routers. i think that only pairwise interactions are needed ie just between 2 ISPs that are connected. so ISP-provider charges its ISP-customer for prefix announcements, this can depend on how aggregated teh prefix is. the same thing can be done at higher levels of the hierarachy. the decision whether to charge like this can all be done independently for every ISP pair. in fact you could argue that this is already being done today to some extent. [1] route flap damping limits how often ISP accepts route announcements. you could view this an economics: no charge if within RFD limit; infinite charge if over RFD limit. [2] ISP can select who gets PI addresses, depending on value /payment from customer. something on the lines of the second criticism seems ok, although "giving up a solution that genuinely enables users" seems rather provocative /vague [sorry, no text suggestion at the moment] In the conclusions i dont understand what you mean by : "Further, variants of Strategy B (Section 3.3.2 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-01#section-3.3.2> ) that require manual locator assignment are similarly unacceptable, as are solutions that do not significantly change existing host behavior, such as Strategy D (Section 3.3.4 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-01#section-3.3.4> ), Strategy E (Section 3.3.5 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-01#section-3.3.5> ), Strategy F (Section 3.3.6 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-01#section-3.3.6> ), and Strategy G (Section 3.3.7 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-01#section-3.3.7> )." this says that a solution is only accepatble only if it significantly changes host behaviour. i presume you mean the opposite. however Strategy E (economics) & F (do nothing) seem to have no impact on host behaviour either. best wishes, phil
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
