At 4:37 PM +0000 12/19/02, steve wrote: >hello, > >indeed a large problem .... > >the need for a hierarchical routing protocol ,that is effectively flat... > >i think that is impossible for the internet to ever really converge ...if it >did it would indicate a lack of growth or movement ....which would not be >good for my job prospects ! > >i think that the industry needs more focus in this ,
There is are two requirements teams in the IRTF, and I'm a coauthor of one of the "team b" document, http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf-announce/Current/msg16909.html I've coauthored another draft that is more basic in terms of establishing vocabulary. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eriksson-rabbit-00.txt > >i believe that for all intense and purposes`s the ip address is dead.... >having a ip address limit`s your flexibility ,and any future expansion is >dictated by it ..we need to find a way of doing something like this ( i >DREAD writing this) > >fixed domain name > >i,e www.steve.com > >Multiprocessing routers > >and ....... > >a Dynamic address of some format (a la` DHCP).....eek dhcp .....i dread it IPv6 significantly improves dynamic addressing, especially the optional protocol that sends high-level prefix information to routers. The biggest problem remains multihoming. >... > >but in order for us to achieve what the customer`s are driving for ,it`s >probably the only real way to give people the flexibilty the need and want >.... > >i think it may be time for the industry to start driving the customer >....and not the other way around...dynamic addressing can be done ,but do we >WANT to do it .......i`m not sure that it wouldn't`t cause more problems >than it solve`s.... One of the problems is that customers don't WANT to have to reconfigure anything. I'll point to such things as US telephone area code reassignments to show that sometimes technical requirements force the user into certain things, not the other way around. >but also i think that we are approaching a time when we will HAVE no choice >but to address this ...or face an internet meltdown ... > >at this point i back away ...stating that my intellect and knowledge of the >problem is not as rounded as it needs to be to deal with this .. > >but ,as usual ,your answer was appreciated,and i will get on the mailing >list .......(just to read) > >many thanks > >Steve > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" >To: >Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 3:13 PM >Subject: Exterior Routing Scalability (was: CCIE Vs. BS or MS dergree >[7:59529] > > >> At 2:39 PM +0000 12/19/02, steve wrote: >> >Howard, >> > >> >just my 2 pence >> > >> >you know ... >> > >> >funny you should say about BGP ... I was just thinking that the other >day... >> > >> >but I personally don`t agree with the new protocol theory... >> >I personally don't claim to be able to do this....I can barely plug in a >> >switch ....but >> >as far as I am aware ....the ISP BGP world is an all seeing all knowing >> >world were all OX amount of routes are seen by everyone ..and I believe >this >> >is where the problem lies. >> >> There's a subtle difference, and also some history here. The absolute >> number of routes isn't the problem. We can build perfectly good >> memory structures and search algorithms to find 10 million routes. >> The problem is the rate of change of the routes, constantly being >> added and withdrawn, which has a couple of significant effects. >> >> First, it's a processor load on individual routers. That can be >> dealt with, I think -- in fact, multiprocessing in the routing >> control plane is one of my research interests. >> >> The big problem comes with global instability. The Internet never >> really converges as a whole, and the protocol designers in the IRTF >> and IETF have pretty much agreed to that. >> >> >> > >> >When designing a routing protocol ,there is a basic problem that all >> >designer`s face is ....links go up/down ...route`s appear and >disappear... > > >the more routes you have the more the protocol has to do ...regardless of >> >how you get around this fact with fancy techniques ,there will still be a >> >scalability problem based around a connectivity problem ,the more routes >the >> >more unstable the less your inclined to scale .... >> >the protocol`s I think can probably made more efficient ,but it does not >> >address the real problem , >> >that is the amount of routes that a being added daily make`s any >> >computational algorithm`s task very difficult . >> > >> >the only way in my humble opinion to make this more stable/scaleable is >to >> >back to the OSPF DESIGN NOT PROTOCOL... >> > >> >Regionalise .......create Super AS for various regions i.e US UK JP >> >AUS...and then Tag all routes coming out .. >> >> That, indeed, is the fundamental assumption of CIDR and BGP-4. >> Unfortunately, we are having great market and perceptual problems in >> changing. >> >> You see, CIDR/BGP-4 assumed that significant aggregation in a >> hierarchy was possible and desirable. The Internet, in broad terms, >> would be a pyramid, although there would be multiple major carriers >> at the peak of the pyramid. EGP assumed only one core. >> >> Various people, especially Geoff Huston, have demonstrated that the >> Internet topology is "flattening" away from the pyramid. The IETF >> PTOMAINE Working Group web page, under www.ietf.org, is a good source >> here. The growth in AS is not particularly in carriers, but in >> multihoming users. The users want protocol-independent address space >> so they aren't locked into a business relationship with a single >> carrier, and they want to be able to home to arbitrary carriers at >> different hierarchical levels. Flattening defeats aggregation. >> >> IPv6 has some measures that make it easier to switch carriers, but >> the multihoming problem is harder in v6 than in v4. >> >> There are also user expectations of fine-grained high availability >> that won't work in a highly aggregated environment. >> >> > >> >OK (in an ideal world) this IS NOT the only way of doing things....link 1 >of >> >8000 goes down ...your advertising all 8000 out of one supernet ... >> > >> >But atleast in this case only your "Super ASBR`s" if you like.... would >only >> >need to communicate with eachother ... >> > >> >perhaps this is what already happen`s ....but i see that a fundamental >shift >> >in the way we network is required and not necessarily a change in >protocol >> >.... >> > >> >many thanks >> > >> >(I`ll keep my head down now ...i think...i`m only trying to help !!!) >> > >> >Steve Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59543&t=59543 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
