In einer eMail vom 24.01.2010 20:47:40 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [email protected]:
However, LISP is still not a new routing architecture - which I claim we will still need, when all the dust settles. And _none_ of the proposals here (well, the Compact Routing stuff comes closest) is a new routing architecture.... Noel Indeed none of the submitted proposals. But it is also true that all kind of arguments are used to fight a new routing architecture such as TARA. TARA-goals: 1)Scalability: Table size: 64800 entries (1 per geopatch) + 3600 meta-table entries + n times 60 entries (in the worst case) with n TARA-routers inside the own geopatch Update churn: tending to zero. The scalability issue will be eliminated once and forever 2) Multicast to millions of receivers (imagine TVoIP of the opening olympique celebration to hundred millions of receivers - admitted, TARA would be the basis, a better than today's MC is needed (and could be developed), too 3)Traffic engineering: Enables all kind of detouring Multipath (not just ECMP) while recongizing,any dead-end path. Enables congestion handling for all kind of streams, in particular voice and live-TV streams whose transmission rates cannot be slowed down, based on a communication between the congested and the respective upstream neighbor network.(i.e. provides a rearview mirror) Enables time-of-day routing. Abolishes loops.Would overcome the TTL-mechanism which appears to be a relict from the stone age. 4) Mobility: Enables Mobility solutions without a home agent or rendez-vous server. Well scoped ANYWHERE-cast using well-scoped broadcast mechanism (better than flooding) Hence will certainly enable services which are still unknown today 5) Moore's Law: Will increase the speed of the next hop retrieval by factor 20 i.e. enable Moore's law applicability - even in cases where the best next hop is be replaced by some other (e.g. detouring) next hop. 6) Will enable stretch-1 and disable the Istanbul-effect 7) Clean slate: Will overcome the orthogonality between intra- and inter-domain routing. Will overcome the either-or thinking between network-based versus user-based 8)Multihoming: Enables Multihoming (just like all the other proposed solutions) 9) Enables Multi-addressing (IPv4, IPv6 just like LISP, eventually more: HIT, names, E164 without enum ?! ) because the transit router uses the TARA-locator, doesn't look at the other address; 10) Eliminates the IPv4 depletion issue, because of 7): IPv4 must be locally unique only. PI or PA? All are PI effectively. 11) Provides a strategy for incremental deployment 12) Provides a new realm for working on IP technology in the future. However many do not want a new routing architecture. I can see this by the critiques I have received so far: Best example: the partitioning argument. Or do not acknowledge that TARA is a new routing architecture (e.g. by comparing it with GIRO or metro-based routing) Heiner
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
