Re: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)

[Marshall Eubanks <tme () americafree tv>]

On Nov 6, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Mark Smith wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 21:40:30 -0400
> Marshall Eubanks <tme () americafree tv> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 5, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:32:30 -0700
> > > "Scott Weeks" <surfer () mauigateway com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's really quiet in here.  So, for some Friday fun let me whap at the hornets nest and see what happens...  >;-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ionary.com/PSOC-MovingBeyondTCP.pdf
> > >
> > > Who ever wrote that doesn't know what they're talking about. LISP is
> > > not the IETF's proposed solution (the IETF don't have one, the IRTF do),
> >
> > Um, I would not agree. The IRTF RRG considered and is documenting a lot of things, but did not
> > come to any consensus as to which one should be a "proposed solution."
>
> I probably got a bit keen, I've been reading through the IRTF RRG
> "Recommendation for a Routing Architecture" draft which, IIRC, makes a
> recommendation to pursue Identifier/Locator Network Protocol rather
> than LISP.

That is not a consensus document - as it says

   To this end, this
   document surveys many of the proposals that were brought forward for
   discussion in this activity, as well as some of the subsequent
   analysis and the architectural recommendation of the chairs.

and (Section 17)

   Unfortunately, the group
   did not reach rough consensus on a single best approach.

The Chairs suggested that work continue on ILNP, but it is a stretch to 
characterize that as the RRG's solution, much less the IRTF's.

(LISP is an IETF WG now, but with an experimental focus on its charter - 
"The LISP WG is NOT chartered to develop the final
or standard solution for solving the routing scalability problem.")

Regards
Marshall


> Regards,
> Mark.
>
>
> > Regards
> > Marshall
> >
> >
> > > and streaming media was seen to be one of the early applications of the
> > > Internet - these types of applications is why TCP was split out of
> > > IP, why UDP was invented, and why UDP has has a significantly
> > > different protocol number to TCP.
> > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > "NAT is your friend"
> > > >
> > > > "IP doesn’t handle addressing or multi-homing well at all"
> > > >
> > > > "The IETF’s proposed solution to the multihoming problem is 
> > > > called LISP, for Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol. This
> > > > is already running into scaling problems, and even when it works,
> > > > it has a failover time on the order of thirty seconds."
> > > >
> > > > "TCP and IP were split the wrong way"
> > > >
> > > > "IP lacks an addressing architecture"
> > > >
> > > > "Packet switching was designed to complement, not replace, the telephone 
> > > > network. IP was not optimized to support streaming media, such as voice, 
> > > > audio broadcasting, and video; it was designed to not be the telephone 
> > > > network."
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And so, "...the first principle of our proposed new network architecture: Layers are recursive."
> > > >
> > > > I can hear the angry hornets buzzing already.  :-)
> > > >
> > > > scott