[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: FYI -- Informal LISP BOF scheduled for lunch time on Thursday

Subject: Re: FYI -- Informal LISP BOF scheduled for lunch time on Thursday
From: David Meyer
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 09:42:49 -0800
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 07:32:33PM -0800, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> So today at the Routing Area Open Meeting you have explicitly expressed the 
> concern that "routing is about to collapse".
>

        I'm not sure what I said exactly, but if I said that, I
        probably misspoke (one of the dangers of speaking on the
        fly, I suppose). But in any event, there is stress on the
        routing system. And BTW, I'm sure one can find ISPs that
        will tell you, "nah, its not a problem", because they have
        the latest and great router [or whatever], but there are
        plenty of folks feeling the pain. If you dispute that,
        search, say, [email protected] (or just the archives of the
        last meeting). Convolve with the pressure the RIR system 
        is feeling (for example; there many factors here) and one
        can see storm clouds on the (near) horizion. 

        So what we are facing is not as unidimensional as being
        able to build a bigger router. We have plenty of
        existence proofs that we can do that. 
 
> I have been following and discussing with various folks this new wave of 
> fixing the routing. In fact I have my own set of ideas which are in fact 
> very very close to what Lixia was already proposing. Till now even looking 
> ten years ahead no one can show the significant proof that "routing is 
> about to collapse".

        Well, "about to collapse" probably isn't the way to frame
        it up. Its a complex problem, involving physics
        (dynamical systems), technology (what we are ostensibly
        working on here), economics, public policy (and
        associated regulatory environment), market dynamics,
        etc. I've done a bit of work on what the convolution of
        these various factors might mean, but this is still very
        much more an art than a science. See e.g.,  
        http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/talks/NANOG41/perfect_storm.pdf
        for some thinking along these lines.
        
> Contrary there are number of vendors with deployed platforms which are 
> today carrying ten fold number of routes what today's internet carry for 
> some other applications.

        We all know that we vendors say that. We can always build
        something bigger; that is simply not the point. IMO we
        can dispense with this. Its kind of a red herring (I do
        seem to recall someone saying "with enough thrust..." and
        yeah, I know it was Milo). So again, that one can build a
        bigger router is not the point.

        And BTW, as you know, precise models of how the routing
        system works (as a dynamical system) are not available,
        and while although we've done significant reverse
        engineering, to some exent we're all guessing about the
        properties of the system. But 

        we can say a few simple things, such as (i). the DFZ is
        growing, (ii). as the DFZ grows, more of the dynamics of
        the network are exposed in the core (simple computability
        arguments here), and (iii). the widespread deployment of
        IPv6 is a wildcard (O(2^32) >> O(2^128)). 

> PS. Said all of the above I think there are many other benefits for 
> introducing the hierarchy in the inter domain routing .. hence I am very 
> much supporting this as individual. I am just trying to make sure we focus 
> on the correct problem not the imaginary/non-existent ones :).

        That seems only prudent, and I'm sure everyone feels the
        same way.

        Dave
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>