[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Owen DeLong]

On Jan 24, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Bill Darte wrote:

>
>
> We should at least learn some lessons from previous routing  
> scalability
> problems.  Personally, I do not believe the routing table growth  
> problem
> will ever be solved until we separate the routing identifier from the
> end
> system identifier.  However, until that is done, we have to look at  
> IPv6
> as it stands.
>
>
> Owen, so OK the conversation continues to be about changing address  
> policy
> and shim6 and deagregations and .....
>
> Why is GBP sacrosanct?  Is there no better method of routing large  
> scale
> networks?  You mention a technique above.  Is this a legitimate  
> pursuit?
> Are there others?  Does the problem we keep arguing about need to  
> be solved
> with tweaks? Seems everything  is about preserving the BGP routing
> tables....isn't there a routing fix?
>
I presume s/GBP/BGP/ above.

I don't know.  For the time being, it's the protocol we have.  I  
personally think
it is a legitimate pursuit, but, I have not been able to convince  
anyone who
knows enough to move it forward in the IETF to help me write it up so  
that
we can get it moving.  There are a number of hurdles which would need
to be overcome.  There are issues regarding the association of ESIs  
to their
corresponding RIs, and, questions about whether the path information  
would
actually present less of a scaling issue than ESI prefix information,  
but, I don't
have the knowledge or the resources to answer any of these questions by
myself.

Owen