[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
re: [RRG] GSE?
Hi Brain
> I think the interesting question is: how many of those
> issues apply to ILNP?
Reasonable. These two proposals are much similar except that ILNP gives the
hosts some capability to suggest the upstream ISP (RG) if I understood them
correctly.
Xiaohu XU
> On 2008-06-12 16:29, Xu Xiaohu wrote:
> > Hi Tony and Lixia,
> >
> > How about launching the review and discussion on the listed issues of
GSE
> in
> > draft-ietf-ipngwg-esd-analysis-05 one by one, so as to see whether some
of
> > them are still big issues from current point of view and to find
something
> > we can do now to fix these issues?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Xiaohu XU
> >
> >> -----邮件原件-----
> >> 发件人: owner-rrg@psg.com [mailto:owner-rrg@psg.com] 代表 Tony Li
> >> 发送时间: 2008年6月12日 1:35
> >> 收件人: 'Mayutan A.'; 'Robin Whittle'
> >> 抄送: 'Routing Research Group'
> >> 主题: RE: [RRG] GSE?
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Mayutan, Robin,
> >>
> >> Isn't the Six-One proposal by Christian Vogt an enhancement of the
> >> GSE.
> >> http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-vogt-rrg-six-one-01.txt
> >>
> >> Correct me if I am wrong.
> >>
> >> You are exactly correct. I still encourage folks to read GSE
> > independently,
> >> just so you have some perspective on Christian's changes.
> >>
> >> Also, some of the work that Ran Atkinson has done has been in part
derived
> >> from GSE.
> >>
> >>
> >> GSE seems to have been developed briefly around 1997. I
> >> understand
> >> that applying it to IPv6 as used today would involve major
> >> changes
> >> in routers, host stacks and some or all applications.
> >>
> >> There may well be some major attractions in doing this, if
> >> it could
> >> be done, but it sounds like a radical thing on which to bet
> >> the
> >> future of the Net.
> >>
> >>
> >> Welcome to the IRTF. Our job is research. No job too large, no change
> >> unthinkable.
> >>
> >>
> >> Could you or someone else put together a proposal and link
> >> to it
> >> from the RRG wiki? An 8 page summary and analysis document
> >> would be
> >> good too.
> >>
> >>
> >> Others should feel free to step up here. I'm trying to remain neutral.
> >>
> >>
> >> A crucial part of this would be the time-frame for
> >> transitioning the
> >> current IPv6 system to whatever it is you are planning, and
> >> then
> >> having a transition plan for most end-users from IPv4 to the
> >> new system.
> >>
> >> I think it would also be good to explain why you would
> >> prefer to do
> >> this in a hurry for IPv6 - due to whatever urgency you or
> >> other
> >> people might think about the IPv4 scaling problem - rather
> >> than
> >> fixing the IPv4 problem with a map-encap scheme and then
> >> being able
> >> to take more time on whatever it is you propose for IPv6.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm not in a hurry to do anything. There's no need. I'd much rather
Get
> > It
> >> Right. Whatever we do here is forever.
> >>
> >>
> >> I haven't read enough to know how it provides multihoming
> >> and
> >> portability (of the ESD part of the address) when changing
> >> ISPs.
> >>
> >>
> >> The ESD would be a constant when changing ISPs. That's the whole
point.
> >> Identifiers are decoupled from locators.
> >>
> >>
> >> So how does the Routing Goop and STP get set when the packet
> >> leaves
> >> the site for another? Does a router change them or does the
> >> sending
> >> host have to get it right. Does there need to be a mapping
> >> function
> >> and consequently a mapping database to determine what to set
> >> these
> >> to, since the ESD is what uniquely identifies the
> >> destination host?
> >>
> >>
> >> Presumably set by a router when you exit the subnet and/or the site.
Yes,
> >> there needs to be a mapping database to determine destination RG and
ESD.
> >> One might reasonably extend DNS to do this. No mapping database is
needed
> >> in the site's local routers as they would presumably be configured with
> > the
> >> RG or learn it via some other management mechanism such as SNMP, DHCP,
the
> >> IGP, or your favorite NMS.
> >>
> >>
> >> What lead to the demise of GSE ten years ago?
> >>
> >>
> >> I wasn't directly involved, but my read was that it was politics.
Because
> >> it modified v6, it was unacceptable to those that felt that v6 was
> > perfect.
> >> We seem to be over that now...
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Tony
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
> >> word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> >> archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
> > word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> > archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
> >
>
>
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
> word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg