[ppml] 2005-1 status

--On February 1, 2006 12:57:02 PM +0000 Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:

>>  Frankly, if the IETF thinks I am wrong about
>> this, then, they should start designing a new routing infrastructure
>> that can support the requirements of the real world.
> 
> The IETF ceased being responsible for the Internet's
> routing structure at least a decade ago. Seems to
> me that all the recent advancements in routing have
> been driven by network operators or vendors or
> end users, often with no IETF involvement.
> 
I don't believe that any of the forces you mentioned have ever
made a fundamental change to the way we do routing.  Sure, they
have made changes to the internal function of routers, but, the
switch from BGP3 to BGP4 (which was the last significant change
in routing structure) was done by IETF.

What is needed now is a fundamental change in the routing
architecture and protocol.  BGP4 will not scale.  We have
to come up with a way to separate the interdomain
topological locator from the End System Identifier.  We need
to have some mechanism for aggregating paths to said
topological locators.  Finally, we need some  mechanism for
quickly and securely mapping End System Identifiers to
topological locators at the edge of the default-free zone.

Such a change is not likely to come from operators, vendors
or end users.

>> The IETF used to do a much better job of understanding the true
>> needs of end users.  What has changed is the nature of the end users.
>> It used to be that the end users were, by and large, also the network
>> operators and protocol engineers.  Now that John Q. Public is the
>> norm and not the exception on the internet, I'm not sure that the
>> IETF model of development scales so well.
> 
> I think it has been shown that the IETF model of the 1980s
> did not scale and therefore in the first decade of the
> 21st century, we don't rely on the IETF to supply operational
> improvements to the Internet.
> 
So you're saying that IETF isn't responsible for IPv6?  Other than
things which can be implemented on a site-by-site basis without requiring
a change in the protocol, I don't believe there have been any
operational improvements in the internet outside of the IETF
process.

> However, the IETF model of open public discussion has scaled
> reasonably well in numerous other groups and organizations that
> tackle the various problems of the Internet.
> 
The model of open public discussion can scale well if there is
appropriate representation of the stakeholders and good moderation
and facilitation of the discussion.  However, over time, almost
every group loses or fails to achieve at least one of these two
properties.  I am not opposed to the model... Indeed, I think it
is the best model.  However, it does have flaws and an awareness
of those flaws is important.


Owen


-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/attachments/20060201/6700c9a5/attachment.bin