Friday, October 1, 2010

Location / Separation Protocol Checklist

This list can be useful when assessing LISP, ILNP, RANGI, Ivip, hIPv4, NOL, CRM, LMS, GLI-Split, TIDR, EEMDP or IRON-RANGER. :-) Location / Identifier Separation Checklist:

Your post advocates a

( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante ( ) political

approach to reducing the growth of the internet routing table (e.g. the DFZ). Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws.)

( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) There is no centralized authority that will force people to carry out your plan
( ) Requires every host to be upgraded to a newer version of their netstack
( ) Nobody wants to rewrite all applications to support your plan
( ) your mapping system consumes more memory then available on planet earth
( ) New complicated IP allocation policies must be set by the RIRs
( ) People won't give up their current allocations
( ) Your plan is incomplete or contains too much "needs to be further discussed." phrases
( ) No one can agree on the definition of an EID

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) IPv4
( ) IPv6
( ) Layer-2 multi-pathing
( ) Vendor Lock-in
( ) Running code within the next 12 months
( ) Vendor bickering
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Scalability
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of routing
( ) Huge existing investment in hardware, software or licences
( ) The trouble associated with changing gazillion hosts to understand your plan
( ) Willingness of users to renumber to new IP space
( ) No universal guaranteed MTU and the monster that PMTUD is
( ) Extreme profitability when abused
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) The vendors have too many bugs
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business over the Internet

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any proposal that requires all routers connected to the Internet to be upgraded on the same day is unacceptable
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your claim about the locations of nodes
( ) There is no money to be made
( ) Tunnels are evil but dynamic encapsulation is okay
( ) You suffer from the "Not Invented Here"-syndrome
( ) Must have a MIB designed first

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

1 comment:

Petr Lapukhov said...

Did you just pick every argument they posted on RRG mailing list? :D