Again, I would like to get out of the mode of talking about individual proposals. If folks want to have a conceptual discussion about transformation solutions in general, I'd welcome that.
Tony |-----Original Message----- |From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 4:22 PM |To: Xu Xiaohu |Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Routing Research Group' |Subject: Re: [RRG] GSE? | |Hi, | |I think the interesting question is: how many of those |issues apply to ILNP? | |Also remember that some of the esd-analysis issues were |disputed, which is really why the document never became |an RFC. | | Brian | |On 2008-06-12 16:29, Xu Xiaohu wrote: |> Hi Tony and Lixia, |> |> How about launching the review and discussion on the listed |issues of GSE in |> draft-ietf-ipngwg-esd-analysis-05 one by one, so as to see |whether some of |> them are still big issues from current point of view and to |find something |> we can do now to fix these issues? |> |> Best regards, |> Xiaohu XU |> |>> -----邮件原件----- |>> 发件人: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 代表 Tony Li |>> 发送时间: 2008年6月12日 1:35 |>> 收件人: 'Mayutan A.'; 'Robin Whittle' |>> 抄送: 'Routing Research Group' |>> 主题: RE: [RRG] GSE? |>> |>> |>> Hi Mayutan, Robin, |>> |>> Isn't the Six-One proposal by Christian Vogt an |enhancement of the |>> GSE. |>> http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-vogt-rrg-six-one-01.txt |>> |>> Correct me if I am wrong. |>> |>> You are exactly correct. I still encourage folks to read GSE |> independently, |>> just so you have some perspective on Christian's changes. |>> |>> Also, some of the work that Ran Atkinson has done has been |in part derived |>> from GSE. |>> |>> |>> GSE seems to have been developed briefly around 1997. I |>> understand |>> that applying it to IPv6 as used today would |involve major |>> changes |>> in routers, host stacks and some or all applications. |>> |>> There may well be some major attractions in |doing this, if |>> it could |>> be done, but it sounds like a radical thing on |which to bet |>> the |>> future of the Net. |>> |>> |>> Welcome to the IRTF. Our job is research. No job too |large, no change |>> unthinkable. |>> |>> |>> Could you or someone else put together a |proposal and link |>> to it |>> from the RRG wiki? An 8 page summary and |analysis document |>> would be |>> good too. |>> |>> |>> Others should feel free to step up here. I'm trying to |remain neutral. |>> |>> |>> A crucial part of this would be the time-frame for |>> transitioning the |>> current IPv6 system to whatever it is you are |planning, and |>> then |>> having a transition plan for most end-users |from IPv4 to the |>> new system. |>> |>> I think it would also be good to explain why you would |>> prefer to do |>> this in a hurry for IPv6 - due to whatever |urgency you or |>> other |>> people might think about the IPv4 scaling |problem - rather |>> than |>> fixing the IPv4 problem with a map-encap scheme and then |>> being able |>> to take more time on whatever it is you propose |for IPv6. |>> |>> |>> I'm not in a hurry to do anything. There's no need. I'd |much rather Get |> It |>> Right. Whatever we do here is forever. |>> |>> |>> I haven't read enough to know how it provides |multihoming |>> and |>> portability (of the ESD part of the address) |when changing |>> ISPs. |>> |>> |>> The ESD would be a constant when changing ISPs. That's the |whole point. |>> Identifiers are decoupled from locators. |>> |>> |>> So how does the Routing Goop and STP get set |when the packet |>> leaves |>> the site for another? Does a router change |them or does the |>> sending |>> host have to get it right. Does there need to |be a mapping |>> function |>> and consequently a mapping database to |determine what to set |>> these |>> to, since the ESD is what uniquely identifies the |>> destination host? |>> |>> |>> Presumably set by a router when you exit the subnet and/or |the site. Yes, |>> there needs to be a mapping database to determine |destination RG and ESD. |>> One might reasonably extend DNS to do this. No mapping |database is needed |>> in the site's local routers as they would presumably be |configured with |> the |>> RG or learn it via some other management mechanism such as |SNMP, DHCP, the |>> IGP, or your favorite NMS. |>> |>> |>> What lead to the demise of GSE ten years ago? |>> |>> |>> I wasn't directly involved, but my read was that it was |politics. Because |>> it modified v6, it was unacceptable to those that felt that v6 was |> perfect. |>> We seem to be over that now... |>> |>> Regards, |>> Tony |>> |>> |>> -- |>> to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the |>> word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. |>> archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg |> |> |> |> -- |> to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the |> word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. |> archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg |> | | -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
