[131878] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Sat Nov 6 19:55:09 2010
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv>
In-Reply-To: <20101107010820.46344e03@opy.nosense.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 19:55:00 -0400
To: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Nov 6, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 21:40:30 -0400
> Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv> wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> On Nov 5, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:32:30 -0700
>>> "Scott Weeks" <surfer@mauigateway.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> It's really quiet in here. So, for some Friday fun let me whap at =
the hornets nest and see what happens... >;-)
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> http://www.ionary.com/PSOC-MovingBeyondTCP.pdf
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Who ever wrote that doesn't know what they're talking about. LISP is
>>> not the IETF's proposed solution (the IETF don't have one, the IRTF =
do),
>>=20
>> Um, I would not agree. The IRTF RRG considered and is documenting a =
lot of things, but did not
>> come to any consensus as to which one should be a "proposed =
solution."
>>=20
>=20
> I probably got a bit keen, I've been reading through the IRTF RRG
> "Recommendation for a Routing Architecture" draft which, IIRC, makes a
> recommendation to pursue Identifier/Locator Network Protocol rather
> than LISP.
>=20
That is not a consensus document - as it says
To this end, this
document surveys many of the proposals that were brought forward for
discussion in this activity, as well as some of the subsequent
analysis and the architectural recommendation of the chairs.
and (Section 17)
Unfortunately, the group
did not reach rough consensus on a single best approach.
The Chairs suggested that work continue on ILNP, but it is a stretch to=20=
characterize that as the RRG's solution, much less the IRTF's.
(LISP is an IETF WG now, but with an experimental focus on its charter -=20=
"The LISP WG is NOT chartered to develop the final
or standard solution for solving the routing scalability problem.")
Regards
Marshall
> Regards,
> Mark.
>=20
>=20
>> Regards
>> Marshall
>>=20
>>=20
>>> and streaming media was seen to be one of the early applications of =
the
>>> Internet - these types of applications is why TCP was split out of
>>> IP, why UDP was invented, and why UDP has has a significantly
>>> different protocol number to TCP.
>>>=20
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> "NAT is your friend"
>>>>=20
>>>> "IP doesn=92t handle addressing or multi-homing well at all"
>>>>=20
>>>> "The IETF=92s proposed solution to the multihoming problem is=20
>>>> called LISP, for Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol. This
>>>> is already running into scaling problems, and even when it works,
>>>> it has a failover time on the order of thirty seconds."
>>>>=20
>>>> "TCP and IP were split the wrong way"
>>>>=20
>>>> "IP lacks an addressing architecture"
>>>>=20
>>>> "Packet switching was designed to complement, not replace, the =
telephone=20
>>>> network. IP was not optimized to support streaming media, such as =
voice,=20
>>>> audio broadcasting, and video; it was designed to not be the =
telephone=20
>>>> network."
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> And so, "...the first principle of our proposed new network =
architecture: Layers are recursive."
>>>>=20
>>>> I can hear the angry hornets buzzing already. :-)
>>>>=20
>>>> scott
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>=20
