Ran,
2) More General RG Consensus
Noting that "rough consensus" is very different from unanimity,
I *believe* (could be wrong) that there were a small number
of conceptual things that the RG did achieve rough consensus
on. I'd like to see those noted as RG consensus items in
the Recommendation document.
+1.
I think one of those rough consensus items is:
The Internet continuing down the current architectural path,
whereby site multi-homing increases the size/entropy of the
DFZ RIB/FIB is not believed to be scalable or viable.
+.98. Perhaps I would write it slightly differently.
The Internet continuing down the current architectural path,
whereby site multi-homing increases the size/entropy of the
DFZ RIB/FIB exposes operators to risks of unpredictable
growth in associated costs.
This takes into account Geoff's latest observations and analysis with
regard to table growth. I don't think we can say at this point whether
things have momentarily leveled off, or whether we are seeing a sort of
plateau, based on current usage patterns.
I think there is a related point to capture:
The limits of scaling we see today have led us to impose limits on growth
such as making multihoming far more the exception rather than the rule
and hence limiting means of resiliency. Further, those few consumers who
want to multihome must either pay an inordinate fee for the service, or
must make use of NATs that pose their own sets of problems.
I think another comes from RFC-4984, specifically from 7.2,
which suggests some form of ID/Locator split is desirable.
(NB: While the RG does not agree on the details of how that split
best should happen, there appears to be rough consensus within
the RG that some form of ID/Locator split is desirable.)
+1.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
