See my comments inline. Heiner
-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- Von: RJ Atkinson <[email protected]> An: IRTF Routing RG <[email protected]> Verschickt: Mo., 17. Mai. 2010, 20:39 Thema: [rrg] Another Routing RG Straw Poll This is another straw poll for the IRTF Routing RG. There are 4 statements below. IRTF Routing RG members are free to vote on each. This poll ends 7 days from the date/time stamp on this email. Votes are EITHER "Yes" which means "I can tolerate this statement, even if the wording is not ideal" XOR "No" which means I cannot tolerate this statement and disagree with it. Each statement should be evaluated by itself, based ONLY on the words below within each statement. I will NOT be modifying the statement wording during this poll. (1) "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." Right.Nor does it match what other routing applications demonstrate meanwhile (-->Google route planner, e.g.) (2) "The RG has rough consensus that separating identity from location is desirable and technically feasible. However, the RG does NOT have consensus on the best engineering approach to such an identity/location split." This is missleading. There are solutions A, B, C rather than good, better, best id/loc-split solutions. (3) "The RG has consensus that the Internet needs to support multi-homing in a manner that scales well and does not have prohibitive costs." The internet needs to have a networking layer (=routing protocol) that enables multipath in forward direction and also multipath in backward direction so that traffic load handling can be performed. Multi-homing is just a special case of multipath forwarding. (4) "Any IETF solution to Internet scaling has to not only support multi-homing, but address the real-world constraints of the end customers (large and small)." If you mean by addressing the real-world constraints "must be DV-based" then I disagree. Otherwise it is a trivial requirement. Doodle URL for this poll: <http://www.doodle.com/z5s9yq8kt73eua9t> (I'll vote formally, but I believe all 4 statements are valid.) Thanks, Ran [email protected] PS: I'm obliged to Scott B, Noel C, Joel H, & Eliot L for their inputs about candidate statements to poll, but they ought not be blamed if one dislikes how the 4 statements above were worded or what a given statement says. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
