I may not necessarily agree with the technical specifics of Heiner's msg, but I do think the msg made a good point: to provide useful input into RRG London agenda, we need to first have a clear goal(s) for that meeting. Just volunteering a talk for whatever latest results multiple individuals have achieved may or may not help RRG to move forward.
So what do we as a group want to achieve? Reactivating RRG would be the results of identifying that goal (the group would march towards that clearly articulated goal). Or maybe the goal of London meeting could be to identify/clarify the goal? (in that case, Heiner's msg did make one position statement as an input, for the group to consider) Lixia PS: I must admit that I have NOT had time to go thru the 40 or so RRG msgs since Vancouver IETF, ignore my comments if the goal had been clarified earlier (other than "reactivating RRG"). On Jan 11, 2014, at 12:24 PM, Heiner Hummel <heinerhum...@aol.com> wrote: > Tony, > Given that the IESG doesn't care about IPv4 anymore, what kind of papers are > you looking for? IPv6 papers ? IPv7 papers, based on WHAT ? > > For anyone it would be easier to outline a routing architecture while 16 > octets are available instead of 4. But IPv6 is grounded from the start. Not > even the fact that IPv4 runs out of addresses will help to unleash IPv6. > Combined with NAT, IPv4 won't effectively have a deletion problem. Not for > the next thousand years. > Technologically NAT is a sin fall, it hampers internet services enormously. > But this is true with IPv6 as well. So what! > > Backward compatibility and incremental deployability should be the two MUSTs > for any architecture, no matter who proposes it. IPv6 isn't backward > compatible due to the dual stack issue - right? or is there any way around? > What is expected from any new architecture? To be backward compatible with > IPv4 ( I would think so), to be backward compatible with IPv6 (I wouldn't > think so)? So what is expected? > > And of course what do you expect to be solved, respectively to be enabled at > least ? > ---- > Another Proposal: This group should come up with ideas about what a > networking layer should do/support/enable WITHOUT being restricted by any > existing technical solution. > Two examples: 1): Prefix building per se is not a service. It is only a > subdue instrument to cope with problems of a minor design. > 2): State-less multicast would enable an enormous progress ( Imagine > TV-broadcast to billions of spectators). But this is disabled due to the > crazy belief that there is only one way a FIB can be designed (namely as the > existing FIB looks like) > and because a Multicast-FIB cannot reasonable be cast like the existing > Unicast-FIB there cannot/must not be state-less multicast. Period. > > Heiner > > Am 09.01.2014 um 10:12 schrieb Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>: > >> >> Hi all, >> >> We are still looking for excellent papers for our workshop in London. We >> really need your help in collecting these. If you know of interesting >> research, could you please contact the authors and ask if they would be >> willing to present in London? It's coming very soon… >> >> Thanks, >> Tony >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rrg mailing list >> rrg@irtf.org >> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > rrg@irtf.org > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
