On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Noel Chiappa <[email protected]> wrote: >> From: Tony Li <[email protected]>
> We still have the same old kludgy BGP global routing system we always had, > and _nothing_ has been proposed to improve/replace it. > >> The group has ... helped push the boundaries of routing farther >> forward. > > Nonsense. It has produced no routing work at all. Hi Noel, I have a notion for a "routing" protocol which manages link changes through dynamic readdressing and multiply addressing hosts. By and large the addresses change so that the trivially aggregable routes don't have to. Not just at the host level but all the way downstream from the link change. Even bumps automatic resizing requirements upstream so that over time any given router offers exactly one route outward which automatically aggregates with the route its upstream already holds. It does require a new suite of transport protocols where layer 4 is as loosely bound to layer 3 as layer 3 currently is to layer 2, along with a new suite of APIs which don't expect the application layer to manage remote addresses. It's fresh. Might even be a genuinely new approach to routing. Are you game to flesh it out and see how far we can run with it, even though the odds of ever reaching deployment on an approach which requires us to abandon TCP and UDP are not good? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
