Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
Tim Bass (@NANOG-LIST) nanog at dune.silkroad.com
Thu Jan 25 18:27:16 CET 1996
Sean Doran says: > Yah, yah, Daniel, it's a giant conspiracy against you and Tim Bass. Since my name was mentioned by Sean without provocation, please allow me to respond briefly: ------------------ the kind and compassionate reply ------------------ It interesting that as technologists and engineers, the current climate in internetworking works with undertones of "don't ask questions, because to do so is a form of heresy" against the Internet. I have spent (a few, not enough) days in the archives of Computer Networks, the IEEE journals, and other peer reviewed papers on hierarchical routing; and I have seen *zero* technical justification for "turning a blind-eye" to other less problematic hierarchical routing architectures ( the CIRD, BGP4 paradigm is problematic.... that is why this discussion is taking place as we know) In fact, I have not found one reviewed paper in a journal that compares and contrasts, stochastically, the pros and cons of different hierarchical routing models. Instead of emotional overtones and name calling, isn't it prudent to examine all hierarchical routing paradigms, generate stochastic models, and determine the optimal way to perform hierarchical routing (and try to avoid problematic practical issues as well, which BTW are important ). Hierarchical routing *does not* necessarily translate to "the BGP4, CIDR development path forever"; but for some reason that I cannot explain (and that Sean quips to be "the conspiracy theory" by us engineering skeptics and CIDR heretics) the "world" refuses to take any other hierarchical routing architectures seriously (and many are plausible and feasible if implemented, someone just kindly faxed me another one, BTW). CIDR aggregation is a flawed paradigm for long term growth of the global infrastructure (and most of the engineers seem to roughly agree, IMO); yet we, as technologists, are driven by the forces of commerce to "expand the Internet as fast as possible, keep the growth curve high, grow, grow, grow" mantra; and accept that "we'll just have to be satisfied with band-aid, "change the wings in flight" engineering. .... ladies and gentlemen, we have exactly what we want..... high uncontrollable growth, backwards compatibility problems, forward scaling problems, and the same old protocol development track and engineers and technologist in disharmony. If you study the technical development of the current track, there is a "missing link" that begs to be explored. It would be kind of "those in the CIRD camp" not to label us engineering skeptics who seek to understand "why" as 'heretics and conspiracy theorists'. Personally, I am just interested in answering the question "why?" without throwing stones or casting blame. Thank you and kind regards, Tim postscript: When this thead started, I was determined to stay on the sidelines, and avoid such a wide audience; but since I was mentioned directly in a reply, it seems appropriate to post a short clarifiation, thank your for understanding. +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Tim Bass | | | Principal Network Systems Engineer | "Every decoding is another | | The Silk Road Group, Ltd. | encoding.." | | | | | http://www.silkroad.com/ | David Lodge | | | | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
[ lir-wg Archives ]