RE: GUSL proposal (very crude)

2002-11-29 Thread Michel Py
Mark, Mark Smith wrote: Playing the devils advocate Michel, can you describe, in a real world, nuts and bolts manner, where your site boundary would be. I have tried to address this in the GUSL draft (under co-author review, link to be posted ASAP) Follows is the tentative text.

RE: GUSL proposal (very crude)

2002-11-29 Thread Michel Py
Christian, Christian Huitema wrote: There is a sense of deja vu in all this discussion. Indeed. I think that one of the reasons former proposals have failed is because there was no enforcement of non-routability in the public Internet, if my memory is correct. There is a need for three

Re: GUSL proposal (very crude)

2002-11-28 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Mark Smith wrote: On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 15:59, Michel Py wrote: Mark, Mark Smith wrote: I've always thought we were trying to solve this same single problem, and GUPIs and GUSLs were basically the same thing. GUSL solves the merger thing, but not the VPN. I'm not sure I

Re: GUSL proposal (very crude)

2002-11-28 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Michel Py wrote: ... 1.2.1 Free, random/hash allocation, for unattended/ automated setups. See Paul Francis / Pekka Savola FEC0::/11 1.2.2 Unregistered, free, unique, sequentially allocated. See Charlie

RE: GUSL proposal (very crude)

2002-11-28 Thread Michel Py
Mark / Brian, Michel Py wrote: GUSL solves the merger thing, but not the VPN. Mark Smith wrote I'm not sure I see the difference. Brian Carpenter I agree. As longs as GUSL prefixes are unique, you can flat route them in a foreign enterprise network. Maybe some ad hoc static routes are

RE: GUSL proposal (very crude)

2002-11-28 Thread Michel Py
Alan, Thanks for your comments. The three allocation types may be broader in scope that the _minimum_ requirements, but, to quote Mae West: too much of a good thing can be wonderful. Note (as mentioned earlier) that the third type is subject to scrap at any time, including if the rest of the

RE: GUSL proposal (very crude)

2002-11-28 Thread Mark Smith
Playing the devils advocate Michel, can you describe, in a real world, nuts and bolts manner, where your site boundary would be. Would your site boundary positioned based on : 1) A dramatic drop in bandwidth capacity eg from typical LAN to typical WAN bandwidth drop or 2) geographic

RE: GUSL proposal (very crude)

2002-11-28 Thread Christian Huitema
There is a sense of deja vu in all this discussion -- similar proposals of making SL more unique by somehow sticking an identifier in the 38 available bits have popped out every 2 years on the list since 1994; I have to plead guilty, since I have indeed been one of the proponents.

Re: GUSL proposal (very crude)

2002-11-27 Thread Mark Smith
On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 13:57, Michel Py wrote: [Note: this is independent of GUPI] GUSL Globally Unique Site Local Goals: 1. Provide an allocation method of site-local addresses within FEC0::/10 in order to avoid ambiguity of such addresses. 2. Enforce the non-routability of

RE: GUSL proposal (very crude)

2002-11-27 Thread Michel Py
Mark, Mark Smith wrote: I've always thought we were trying to solve this same single problem, and GUPIs and GUSLs were basically the same thing. GUSL solves the merger thing, but not the VPN. It was my original intent that GUSL could solve the VPN and inter-site connect as well, but Keith

Re: GUSL proposal (very crude)

2002-11-27 Thread Alan E. Beard
Michel: In response to your later request for feedback on this proposal, here are my initial reactions: On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Michel Py wrote: Subject: GUSL proposal (very crude) [Note: this is independent of GUPI] Agreed. GUPI is a separate topic which requires a workable solution.

RE: GUSL proposal (very crude)

2002-11-27 Thread Mark Smith
On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 15:59, Michel Py wrote: Mark, Mark Smith wrote: I've always thought we were trying to solve this same single problem, and GUPIs and GUSLs were basically the same thing. GUSL solves the merger thing, but not the VPN. I'm not sure I see the difference.