shim6 @ NANOG

Mon Mar 6 02:59:04 UTC 2006


--On March 5, 2006 3:28:05 PM -0500 Joe Abley <jabley at isc.org> wrote:

> 
> On 5-Mar-2006, at 14:16, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>> It flies if you look at changing the routing paradigm instead of  
>> pushing
>> routing decisions out of the routers and off to the hosts.  Source  
>> Routing
>> is a technology that most of the internet figured out is problematic
>> years ago.  Making source routing more complicated and calling it  
>> something
>> else doesn't make it less of a bad idea.
> 
> Calling shim6 source-routing when it's not in order to give it an  aura
> of evil is similarly unproductive :-)
> 
Sorry, I guess we'll agree to disagree on this, but, I see very little
difference between shim6 and LSR other than the mechanism of implementation
(shim6 requires a bit more overhead).

>> I don't think it will be as expensive as you think to fix it.  I  
>> think if
>> we start working on a new routing paradigm today in order to  
>> support IDR
>> based on AS PATH instead of Prefix, we would realistically see this in
>> deployable workable code within 3-5 years.
> 
> I'm confused by statements such as these.
> 
> Was it not the lack of any scalable routing solution after many years  of
> trying that led people to resort to endpoint mobility in end  systems, à
> la shim6?
> 
I haven't seen any concrete proposals presented around the idea of IDR
based on something other than prefix.  Everything I've seen leading up
to shim6 was about ways to continue to use prefixes and, to me, shim6
is just another answer to the wrong question... "How can we help scale
prefix based routing?".  The right question still hasn't been asked by
most people in my opinion... "What can we use for routing instead of
prefixes that will scale better?"  As much as I agree the internet is
not the PSTN, this is one place where we have a lot to learn from SS7.
No, SS7 is not perfect... Far from it, but, there are lessons to be
learned that are applicable to the internet, and, separating the
end system identifier from the routing function is one we still seem
determined to avoid for reasons passing my understanding.

Owen

> 
> Joe
> 


-- 
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://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20060305/b4ff20bc/attachment.sig>