[ppml] 2005-1 status
owen at delong.com
Wed Jan 25 01:01:46 EST 2006
On Jan 24, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Bill Darte wrote:
> We should at least learn some lessons from previous routing
> problems. Personally, I do not believe the routing table growth
> will ever be solved until we separate the routing identifier from the
> system identifier. However, until that is done, we have to look at
> as it stands.
> Owen, so OK the conversation continues to be about changing address
> and shim6 and deagregations and .....
> Why is GBP sacrosanct? Is there no better method of routing large
> networks? You mention a technique above. Is this a legitimate
> 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
it is a legitimate pursuit, but, I have not been able to convince
knows enough to move it forward in the IETF to help me write it up so
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
corresponding RIs, and, questions about whether the path information
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
More information about the ARIN-PPML