[ppml] 2005-1 alternatives

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Wed Apr 20 23:57:39 EDT 2005


Agreed... That's why I'm trying to make life better on both fronts.

One one hand, I'm working on a proposal for IETF that would, I think, allow
incremental and beneficial steps towards separatin.

On the other hand, I put forth this policy proposal in the hopes of making
it possible to prevent a ULA land rush for routing table entries.

Owen


--On Wednesday, April 20, 2005 10:22 PM +1000 Geoff Huston <gih at apnic.net>
wrote:

> At 05:26 PM 20/04/2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> But then the duality and implicit tensions of routing scaleability and
>>> addresses utility goes back a very long way - the Routing and Addressing
>>> Group of the IETF in the early 1990s was an early incarnation of the
>>> same set of tensions relating to what makes routing scale vs what makes
>>> addresses truly useful and convenient to use.
>> 
>> That is why I am becoming progressively more convinced that we need
>> to separate these two functions.
> 
> 
> Welcome to a well established area of consideration!
> 
> There is a rich body of material that has been generated over as many
> years as we've been thinking about packet networking. There are papers
> dating back to the early 60's on this issue of what is currently referred
> to as the id/loc split, and the topic space encompasses various forms of
> routing paradigms, end host paradigms and their various forms of
> interaction. In one sense its a wonderfully unconstrained place to think
> in in the abstract, and it would be wonderful to see many more folk
> should be thinking and working in this area than we have today.
> 
> But in practical terms there are a myriad of constraints that needs to be
> considered when you come down to the harshness of  reality. Personally
> I'm of the opinion that its safest, when considering what risks we want
> to run, to assume that routing capability and functionality will pretty
> much continue for some time yet to be what we see today, and also, for
> some time yet addresses will continue to have the semantic overload of
> entity identification and location identification. It's this rather
> conservative view of the world as we know it that is a valid
> consideration when looking at these kind of policy proposals, and yes,
> there is an amazing level of tension between maximizing  the utility and
> stability of addresses, and maximizing the prospects of routing to
> continue to pass these address tokens around the network.
> 
> regard,
> 
>      Geoff
> 
> 
> 



-- 
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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20050420/6b9f9622/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list