Tony:

On 11/6/10 2:35 AM, Tony Li wrote:
>> Proposed text:
>>
>>      It is commonly recognized that the Internet routing and addressing 
>>      architecture is facing challenges which may question the sustainability 
>> of 
>>      the Internet. Examples of these challenges are scalability, mobility, 
>>      multi-homing, and inbound inter-domain traffic engineering.
>>
>> Are folks comfortable with this language?  I'm concerned that it may be seen 
>> as inflammatory. 

I would agree with you, and not to the change.  It is best to stick to
factual quantifiable statements, where possible.

>> MB: What about reducing the message churn ?
>>
>> The churn is much more of a BGP protocol issue, not a routing architecture 
>> issue.
>>
>> MB: Not only inter-domain. In some deployment, intra domains routes are 
>> bigger than the inter-domain one. Yes, it is the case!
>>
>> Perhaps, but if it's intra-domain it's definitely not an architectural 
>> problem.
>>
>> MB: Precise inbound TE is more problematic that outbound one.
>>
>> What are folks doing to address outbound TE?  I assume there are fun and 
>> games with local pref.
>>
>> MB: I don’t think any solution can claim it can be scalable if PI are 
>> assigned.  This is not an achievable goal IMHO without concrete actions from 
>> registries.

"TCP will never go faster than 1 mb/s."

Let's not make such statements for two reasons:
1.  Several groups of smart people believe they have a solution at hand
(ILNP / LISP); and
2.  Even if they don't, there is no law holding the above to be true. 
We just have the existing system, which can be changed.


>> I tend to agree until demonstrated otherwise.  ;-)  I agree that registries 
>> will have to be involved, but we also have to put an architecture in place 
>> so that they can offer a reasonable alternative to PI.
>>
>> MB: What means « scalable » in the context of mobility?  This is not 
>> elaborated in the text.
>>
>> I consider scalability to be a constant, regardless of the context.  This is 
>> simply a restriction.  It implies that the mobility solution can't do 
>> something as drastic as creating inter-domain host routes.

Or that such routes carry no cost beyond the participants in the
communication (MN, CN, FA, HA).

Eliot
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

Reply via email to