[arin-ppml] Routing Research Group is about to decide its scalable routing recommendation

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 04:47:04PM +1100, Robin Whittle wrote:
> OK.  While there may be ways of marginally improving the operation of
> the DFZ, including by improvements to the BGP protocol, the goal of
> scalable routing is far beyond the modest improvements these might bring.

As I outlined in another message, there are really three visions of the
future.  

A) PA only, you will be aggregated.

B) PI for everyone, take your addresses with you for every end user.

C) Extending the current scheme of figuring out who is "worth" for PI.

If we could do A, BGP is fine.  For B, BGP is a lost cause.  For
C, it depends entirely on where you want to put the curve.

I put your work in the "B" bucket, and in that context your statement is
right.  If we can't do that though, the "C" bucket may be the future, in
which case I'm not sure your statement is accurate.

> I think it should extend to SOHO "networks" even though they might
> have most of their hosts behind NAT.  For instance, if I am running a
> business and am concerned about the reliability of my DSL line, I
> should be able to get a 3G or WiMAX service as a backup, and use my
> address space on either.  That is a cheap backup arrangement - since
> there's no need for new fibre or wires.  My address space may only be
> a single IPv4 address, but if I need it for mail, HTTPS e-commerce
> transactions, VoIP etc. I would want it to keep working without a
> hitch if the DSL line or its ISP was not working.

I really like this concept, but somewhere my statistics professor is
wispering in my ear.

It's not entirely clear to me that from a measured uptime perspective
that a future with a SOHO network with the ability to do the type
of "backup" you describe is more reliable than a  SOHO network with a
single upstream.  That is, the ability to have the backup just work
introduces complexity with its own failure modes, and that may offset
the redundancy.

The average end user does not understand this concept though, so even if
I am right they may demand reundancy, even if it lowers their uptime
overall.

> Can you point to any proposal to replace BGP which could be
> introduced in a way which provided significant immediate benefits to
> the early adoptors (not just dependent on how many others adopt it,
> which initially is very low) while also working with the existing system?

Can I point to a proposal, no.  Can I imagine a new routing protocol,
which could be run on a single AS, and redistributed in/out of BGP
at the boarders during transition?  Sure.

> In the future, if mobility is developed as it should be, there will
> be billions of devices, typically connected by a flaky long-latency
> 3G link.  So to say the whole Internet must follow your principle:

I'm cherry picking a statement here, but I want to pick on the
mobility technical qualifications.  A "flaky long-latency 3G link"
seems like a poor point to start.  Given where wireless is and the
future this seems to me a bit like designing BGP in the days of
9600 Baud Modems and assuming 10G wavelengths would have the same
reliability factors.

I feel like before any of the things discussed are out in production 5,
6, or 7G links will be seen as reliable and "low latency", but perhaps
I'm optimistic.

Again, thanks for providing the information in this forum.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20091218/aaba3a5f/attachment.sig>