[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: WG next steps
> From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Do we think it is worthwhile to continue down the network/routing
>> based solutions? The lack of feedback on my draft suggests people
>> aren't very interested in working on this.
Oh, Iljitsch, I thought you got lots of feedback - but it was all of the form
"geographic addressing is a waste of time"! :-)
>> If we want to do this at the routing level, we have start exploring
>> less obvious stuff. For instance, using the flow label or diffserv
>> code points to swim across the default zone towards a network that
>> knows more specific routing information.
Just to prevent confusion, I wouldn't call that a "routing" solution (which,
to me, means having the routing mechanisms keep track of multi-homed sites).
I think it's better to call it an internetwork-layer solution, one which
uses a secondary "locator" in the packet header.
> In the long run that will be the only thing that scales
It's not clear exactly what you're referring to when you say "that ...
scales", but I can see two possible axes for scaling. One is in the size of
a particular site which is multi-homed. The other is in the total number of
multi-homed sites in the network as a whole.
It's quite clear to most people that a routing-based solution (as defined
above) to the "total number" axis is definitely one that will *not* scale.
Can you expand on your comment a little, using this more precise
terminology? Did you mean "an internetwork-layer solution to the total