nanog mailing list archives
Re: shim6 @ NANOG
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 18:59:04 -0800
--On March 5, 2006 3:28:05 PM -0500 Joe Abley <jabley () isc org> wrote:
On 5-Mar-2006, at 14:16, Owen DeLong wrote:It flies if you look at changing the routing paradigm instead of pushing routing decisions out of the routers and off to the hosts. Source Routing is a technology that most of the internet figured out is problematic years ago. Making source routing more complicated and calling it something else doesn't make it less of a bad idea.Calling shim6 source-routing when it's not in order to give it an aura of evil is similarly unproductive :-)
Sorry, I guess we'll agree to disagree on this, but, I see very little difference between shim6 and LSR other than the mechanism of implementation (shim6 requires a bit more overhead).
I don't think it will be as expensive as you think to fix it. I think if we start working on a new routing paradigm today in order to support IDR based on AS PATH instead of Prefix, we would realistically see this in deployable workable code within 3-5 years.I'm confused by statements such as these. Was it not the lack of any scalable routing solution after many years of trying that led people to resort to endpoint mobility in end systems, à la shim6?
I haven't seen any concrete proposals presented around the idea of IDR based on something other than prefix. Everything I've seen leading up to shim6 was about ways to continue to use prefixes and, to me, shim6 is just another answer to the wrong question... "How can we help scale prefix based routing?". The right question still hasn't been asked by most people in my opinion... "What can we use for routing instead of prefixes that will scale better?" As much as I agree the internet is not the PSTN, this is one place where we have a lot to learn from SS7. No, SS7 is not perfect... Far from it, but, there are lessons to be learned that are applicable to the internet, and, separating the end system identifier from the routing function is one we still seem determined to avoid for reasons passing my understanding. Owen
Joe
-- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- RE: shim6 @ NANOG, (continued)
- RE: shim6 @ NANOG Paul Jakma (Mar 07)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG Owen DeLong (Mar 07)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG John Curran (Mar 07)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG Edward B. DREGER (Mar 07)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG Owen DeLong (Mar 07)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG Tony Li (Mar 05)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG Steven M. Bellovin (Mar 05)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 06)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG Stephen Sprunk (Mar 06)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG David Meyer (Mar 06)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG Owen DeLong (Mar 05)
- Time for IPv8? (was Re: shim6 @ NANOG) Roland Dobbins (Mar 05)
- Time for IPv10? (was Re: Time for IPv8?) Roland Dobbins (Mar 05)
- Re: Time for IPv10? (was Re: Time for IPv8?) bmanning (Mar 05)
- Re: Time for IPv8? (was Re: shim6 @ NANOG) JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (Mar 05)
- Re: Time for IPv8? (was Re: shim6 @ NANOG) william(at)elan.net (Mar 06)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG Per Heldal (Mar 06)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG Michael . Dillon (Mar 06)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Randy Bush (Mar 02)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Eliot Lear (Mar 06)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Stephen Sprunk (Mar 06)