On 2009-11-09 04:52, Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: > I would find it useful if the forthcoming rrg recommendation could in > addition to the NAT issue document: > > - limitations of BGP based scalability (not only the hypothec necessity > for loc/id separation, but more of the factual issues. After two years > of research and work in RRG we should be in a position to quantify the > RFC4984 statements in a non speculative way.)
There are two problems with this that I can see immediately: 1. Router vendors are presumably still reluctant to go into great detail about their view of technical limitations and technology roadmaps, as they were several years ago. 2. The past is not a good predictor of the future in this area. (If it was, I'd be suggesting that we just extrapolate from the graphs I drew in my CCR paper. But that would be highly dangerous.) > - is the shortest path routing the only acceptable solution (and why if > that is the case) That seems to be a question about the accepatble tradeoff, i.e. how many % of extra hops (as a proxy for extra latency) are we willing to trade for how much increase in the number of routable prefixes. Brian _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
