I mean you're not: '... as if you're going to fix the real problem inside...'
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Dae Young KIM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Robin, > > So, you still don't catch the implication of my model. OK, I'll draft a > description of the routing scenario that this name/address scheme would > generate in a few days, to meet to the constraints you raised. > > A question before that. > > Is the list of constraints already a general consensus of this RRG? Does > silence mean acceptance? You say like this is a firm consensus whatsoever, > but I don't think I remember there's been any explicit statement like that. > If you will, would you ask the RRG chairs put your constraint at the > beginning of the proposal lists so that it be taken as an absolute basis? Or > have I missed something already done in that manner? > > For example, your 3rd constraint says: > > 3 - Therefore, the solution must be compatible with > all hosts (stacks and applications) and routers > in non-upgraded networks. > > So, you're asking compatibility with all non-upgraded hosts and routers, > don't you? It looks to me as if you're going to fix the real problem inside. > Just patching on it. You're going to inject more drug into the body or an > extra artificial organ beside the real problem area. > > Or your wording comes to me as if you were asking to cut flesh without > spilling a drop of blood. I'm already chocking. > > > > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Robin Whittle <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi DY, >> >> There's a long history of theoretical discussion about routing in the >> RRG. Your last two messages were highly theoretical. >> >> Do you have a proposal for solving the routing scalability problem? >> >> If so, does it involve changes to host operating systems and/or >> applications? Would your proposal be at odds with any other of these >> constraints which arise from the need for voluntary adoption? >> >> http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/RRG-2009/constraints/ >> >> If you have a proposal, please describe it in more concrete terms, >> with examples etc. >> >> There are many ways of designing a global network which has no >> routing scalability problems. Our task is to provide a fix for >> today's Internet - the IPv4 Internet, and for the IPv6 Internet so >> that the same scaling problems won't occur if and when it is widely >> used. We can't force people to adopt anything, though there is some >> scope for altering IPv6 before anyone starts using it on a >> large-scale for general public use. >> >> This task has been likened to converting a propeller-driven passenger >> aircraft into a modern passenger jet - while it is flying. >> >> However this analogy does not depict the constraints imposed by the >> need for widespread voluntary adoption - adoption which will >> typically be motivated by immediate benefits and not by concern about >> scalability. >> >> As with the aircraft analogy, the process of change needs to occur >> with the network fully operating - so existing addressing and >> protocols to hosts, and many other things, need to function normally >> during and after the changes. >> >> Some people seem to think it is good enough to solve IPv6's scaling >> problems and then wait for the billion-plus users to migrate from >> IPv4. I don't accept this because no-one has been able to convince >> me that this mass adoption and therefore non-reliance on IPv4 will >> happen any time in the foreseeable future. >> >> If your proposal doesn't alter host requirements at the operating >> system or application level - for all IPv4 hosts operating today - >> and if it has a chance of meeting the other constraints due to the >> need for voluntary adoption, I will attempt to understand and discuss it. >> >> If you don't have a proposal, perhaps you could critique the most >> prominent proposals: >> >> LISP http://www.lisp4.net >> APT >> http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~meisel/apt-rrg.pdf<http://www.cs.ucla.edu/%7Emeisel/apt-rrg.pdf> >> Ivip >> http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~meisel/apt-rrg.pdf<http://www.cs.ucla.edu/%7Emeisel/apt-rrg.pdf> >> TRRP http://bill.herrin.us/network/trrp-rrg.pdf >> >> all of which I think could meet the 7 absolute constraints imposed by >> voluntary adoption, and would work with both IPv4 and IPv6. >> >> - Robin >> >> >> > > > -- > Regards, > > DY > http://cnu.kr/~dykim <http://cnu.kr/%7Edykim> > -- Regards, DY http://cnu.kr/~dykim
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
