Brian,
Sure. While I can only imagine how troublesome and eventually how impossible
such a task might be, I would like to know how the new addressing scheme
should look like? What are the objectives ?
That a single router needs advertising less prefixes? That the prefixes of
even neighboring routers can be aggregated (or better aggregated than now)?
Who tells whom what to do ?
Given an addressing scheme where just the combination {id, location} must be
unique, the objectives for renumbering would be quite different:
At some particular locations the identifiers just have to be unique, i.e.
not necessarily aggregatable.
Now consider roaming, which most likely takes place within the near
surrounding. The goal (for renumbering) can only be to reduce the likelihood
that in
case of roaming the same identifiers show up at the same location more than
once. BTW, it's a very interesting task to build a respective algorithm. Of
course, a small likelihood is not a guarantee that it doesn't happen, hence
can at most speed up processing in most cases.
Heiner
In einer eMail vom 24.10.2008 22:59:16 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Heiner,
That is a known viewpoint. But the point of my message was to
ask for specific comments on and contributions to the draft.
Brian
On 2008-10-24 23:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Renumbering is impractical.This I can imagine and most of the
> RRG-mailinglist members do know it best (i.e much better than me).
> Furthermore: It doesn't help wrt the IPv4 address depletion issue.
> Whereas ID plus LOCATION would. Admitted, this can be attributed to LISP,
> too. But LISP doesn't exploit its own potential when it introduces a new
name
> space but re-uses hereby the old one again (which is chaotic from the
routing
> point of view).
>
> Heiner
>
> In einer eMail vom 23.10.2008 22:43:52 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> Hi
> Ran and I drafted this in reaction to the earlier discussion here
> about the impracticality of renumbering. We'd like comments and, above
> all, contributions. For now, this list is suggested for any discussion,
> but I will also mention the draft on the intarea list.
>
> Brian
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work-00.txt
> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
> Title : Renumbering still needs work
> Author(s) : B. Carpenter, R. Atkinson
> Filename : draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work-00.txt
> Pages : 18
> Date : 2008-10-23
>
> This document reviews the existing mechanisms for site renumbering
> for both IPv4 and IPv6, and identifies operational issues with those
> mechanisms. It also summarises current technical proposals for
> additional mechanisms. Finally there is a gap analysis.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work-00.txt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
