Hi Tony, Do you think ILNP can be widely enough deployed in the IPv4 Internet to solve its scaling problem? If so, how could this be true since a dual-homed network would chew 3 times the amount of global unicast space it actually uses?
I understand you don't care at all about solving the IPv4 scaling problem (msg06192 2010-03-08), but most other people do. Your and Lixia's current text: We recommended ILNP because we find it to be a clean solution for the architecture. It separates location from identity in a clear, straightforward way that is consistent with the remainder of the Internet architecture and makes both first-class citizens. Unlike the many map-and-encap proposals, there are no complications due to tunneling, indirection, or semantics that shift over the lifetime of a packets delivery. implies that there is a single "architecture". Yet the IPv4 and IPv6 Internets have significant differences, whether these are characterised as "architectural", "practical" or whatever. Your "clean solution" and lack of mention of any complications would lead readers to believe that ILNP is useful for solving the IPv4 scaling problem. But it isn't. You wrote: >> When revising your text, can you add something to indicate that ILNP >> is not suitable for widespread adoption in IPv4? > > This seems like this is more suitable for the section on the ILNP critique. > Perhaps you should collaborate with those authors? In early January I wrote critiques of ILNP to the list and then tried to collaborate with Joel. On 7 and 8 January I corresponded extensively with Joel on what he would put in the ILNP critique he was preparing, and which became the critique in the current RRG draft report. As far as I know, my efforts did not result in any change to what he wrote. In that correspondence I didn't mention that ILNP wouldn't be useful for IPv4 because I considered this to be an obvious fact which was not in dispute. A problem with some of the critiques in the draft RRG report is that they were written by people who were either part of the proposal project, or who supported it. This, and the 500 word limit, means there's reason to believe these critiques may not mention all concerns anyone has about the proposal. I am not sure that Joel previously indicated his support for ILNP, but today in (msg06526) he wrote that he supports your recommendation - so I guess that means that now, at least, he supports ILNP. Below my signature are links to the 7 list messages in which I mentioned the fundamental problem of ILNP - or CEE (Locator / Identifier Separation) architectures in general not being suitable for IPv4 due to their wastage of global unicast address space. Ran (msg06487) asserts he has already answered this critique - but he hasn't. - Robin http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05610.html 2010-01-06 ILNP critique 4 Splitting the 32 bits into 16 bit sections for Locator and Identifier obviously results in too few of one, the other or both. There are no details of how ILNP would work with IPv4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05865.html 2010-01-01 CES & CEE are completely different (graphs) ILNP is a CEE (Locator / Identifier Separation) architecture. "CEE can't be useful for IPv4, since multihoming a /18 network would require a /18 of PI space from one ISP and another /18 from another ISP. So it would at least double address consumption." (This should be "triple".) http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06125.html 2010-02-25 Re: [rrg] Various misunderstandings - ILNP; CEE/CES; Loc/ID Sep. = "revolutionary" "will never be practical as a routing scaling solution for IPv4 because multihoming a network with X IPv4 addresses requires X other IPv4 addresses for each of the two or more ISPs. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06162.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06219.html 2010-03-04/08 Recommendation suggestion from RW/(v2) "This doubling or more of each end-user network's address requirements is one of the reasons CEE architectures are impractical for IPv4." http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06250.html 2010-03-11 Re: [rrg] Why won't supporters of Loc/ID Separation (CEE) argue their case? (Summary of differences) "CEE architectures are only practical for IPv6, for multiple reasons but always including the fact that CEE requires each multihomed end-user network to use at least twice the number of addresses (host locators) from the global unicast address space. Each of its ISPs needs to provide the number of addresses the network needs. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06473.html 2010-04-20 ILNP cannot provide scalable routing benefits for IPv4 For each dual-homed end-user network with S global unicast IP addresses, the system requires a total of S*3 global unicast IP addresses: S IP addresses for the hosts in the end-user network S IP addresses for the PA prefix from ISP-A S IP addresses for the PA prefix from ISP-B This is impractical for widespread adoption, given the IPv4 address space shortage. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
