Tony, Ran, All,
First, thanks very much to Ran for conducting the poll and generating a
substantial amount of consensus of view. Tony has asked for additional
discussion on (1). For everyone's information here is the text:
(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."
As one of the people who withheld my vote on this point, I will explain
why I did so. My own view is that the wording was a bit open ended, and
I would like to have seen it qualified just a bit more. It seems to me
that Geoff's latest research is worth keeping in mind. There he pointed
out that the number of updates has been constant over some period of
time, even as the number of prefixes is increasing.
We have a number of unknowns in the medium term:
* What will be the impact of IPv6 transition/coexistence?
* What will be the impact of IPv4 exhaustion (this is perhaps the
other side of the same coin)?
* How will networks connect to each other in the future? For
example, will the southern hemisphere become considerably more
interconnected than it is now?
* How will/should consumers multihome?
If we cannot answer these questions we can certainly assert that these
are risks relating to the scalability of the routing system.
You'll note I'm shying away from mobility for the moment, but that may
be an elephant in the room.
Regards,
Eliot
On 5/25/10 2:34 AM, Tony Li wrote:
Hi all,
It's now considerably after the official close of this poll.
As of this writing, there were 33 responses, of which 1 is clearly invalid.
That leaves us with 32 valid responses.
Statement 1 has (20/32) 65.6% agreement.
Statement 2 has (26/32) 81% agreement.
Statement 3 has (32/32) 100% agreement.
Statement 4 has (31/32) 97% agreement.
All of these clearly represent rough consensus. However, I would be happier
if Statement 1 had a slightly more decisive consensus. Therefore, I'd like
to ask the group to continue to discuss, refine, and repeat the poll on a
revised version of Statement 1. I suspect that simple wordsmithing will
suffice.
The other 3 statements will show up in the next rev of the document.
Regards,
Tony
On 5/24/10 10:58 AM, "RJ Atkinson"<[email protected]> wrote:
The poll closes in just under 1 hour (from when I write this note).
If anyone has not yet participated and would like to do so,
PLEASE go do so RIGHT NOW. As a reminder, the poll URL remains:
<http://www.doodle.com/z5s9yq8kt73eua9t>
As I write this, there are 31 valid participants, and one
spoilt ballot. Votes are public, visible via the above URL.
For the record, no one has been censored, although someone
failed in an attempt at humour by entering a spoilt ballot
which s/he herself/himself labelled "Censored by...".
Under IRTF process rules, determination of RG consensus is
the privilege of the RG chairs.
So, purely as an observation, not a consensus determination,
most current (13:52 EDT, 24th May 2010) participants support
all 4 statements.
Statement 1 currently has (19/31 or ~61%) agreed.
Statement 2 currently has (25/31 or ~81%) agreed.
Statement 3 currently has (31/31 or 100%) agreed.
Statement 4 currently has (30/31 or ~97%) agreed.
Personally, I am encouraged by all this.
Yours,
Ran
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
