On Jan 17, 2014, at 12:05 AM, heinerhum...@aol.com wrote:
> Lixia,
>
> It was at the London 2002 IETF meeting when the request was raised to develop
> a new routing architecture. Concurrently it was added " there is no reason to
> rush, we will have a 10 years time frame for doing it". Well, meanwhile 12
> years have passed and all we 've got is LISP which boast to enable 52x10^27
> EIDs per person but doesn't enhance the IPv4 address space not by one single
> address. A concept which employs (bottle neck) servers which are vulnerable
> wrt. DoSA and perhaps even due to normal overload of queries and which impose
> a threat to their not-owning clients which dependent on them.
>
> IPv6 was certainly not meant by that request in London because it existed
> already at that time. And RFC 4984 ยง3 even warns that it would multifold the
> number of prefixes. And integrating AS-numbers seems not good wrt prefix
> building either. Also: 16 octets are provided and yet a E164 mobile user
> phone number is still needed outside of these 16 octets:-(.
>
> In the past I have asked many times to discuss the existing paradigms, and
> to question them ! Research is questioning the obvious! The too obvious!
> Like: Why are there two different routing concepts wrt intra versus
> inter-domain routing? I really would like to know why is Dijkstra bad for
> inter-domain ? Why isn't Distance Vector used in intra-domain routing?
> Why is there no Multicast-FIB ? Is it because it can't hardly be like the
> existing Unicast-FIB on the one hand side while on the other side a FIB must
> not be any different than the existing one?
> Lixia, why would you not necessarily agree with my technical specific of
> having a Multicast-FIB ?
> And also: What is the value of depending on prefix building in unicast
> forwarding? After all, it doesn't work wrt Multicast nor to Anycast (nor see
> above with AS#s)
>
> Another very fundamental point is what we expect a network layer to be/to
> look like/to handle/ to solve:
>
> It is not only me, it is the entire ITU-T which thinks that the network layer
> deals with the WHERE. With E164 routing and addressing are or at least have
> been identical: the next-hop trunk was selected electro-mechanically due to
> the next dialed digit. A routing protocol wasn't even needed.
>
> It is worth to have a look to the past. I am convinced, If there were not
> MPOA (but Cisco's Peer model instead) MPLS wouldn't have been developed.
> Without MPLS, being a strong push of IntServ, there wouldn't have been the
> counter movement DiffServ whose mantra is "do what Traffic Engineering wanted
> to contribute to SVCs/LSPs without knowing the network nor its current
> traffic load external to the waiting queue of incoming packets at any router
> And - imho - this mantra prevents any reasonable handling of genuine network
> layer objectives: like handling traffic congestions (avoiding them if
> possible in the first place dissolving them where needed). A network layer
> technology which has no idea, how to direct flows such that some would bypass
> the congested area to the left while some others to the right is not future
> prone. It is stupid and unknowledgeable!!!
>
> Heiner
Hi Heiner,
although your msg seems addressed to me, I believe you meant to bring up the
questions to the RRG, right?
Lixia
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
