[rrg] NANOG44 session on current IP address challenges

[Lixia Zhang]

On Oct 21, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 2008-10-22 07:01, Scott Brim wrote:
>> On 10/21/08 1:44 PM, Dino Farinacci allegedly wrote:
>>>> Map-n-encap would upset Jon, as written GSE depends heavily on  
>>>> DNS, GSE
>>>> conversion would take longer to solve routing scaling than we  
>>>> have time
>>>> for, and nobody wants to make NAT the centerpiece of the new
>>>> architecture.
>>> Scott, do you think Jon would be upset with LISP, as the way it is
>>> currently defined?
>>>
>>> Dino
>>
>> The question is really about mapping.  I wasn't in the room at that  
>> time
>> (that I remember) but I think DNS was a lot more fragile than it is  
>> now,
>> and more fragile than ALT.  Personally I think we're okay as long  
>> as we
>> can deploy the robustness the system is designed for.  If Jon's  
>> problem
>> was having IP forwarding depend on something fragile -- like
>> the-then-DNS -- then I don't think there's a problem.  If he  
>> objected in
>> principle to depending on anything other than hop-by-hop routing  
>> then I
>> guess he would still have a problem ... but then again he never liked
>> route filtering either.
>
> There's no doubt Jon felt strongly about this. I'm not sure whether he
> or Lixia was the originator of the following words in RFC 1958:

No it was not me.
It was Jon who felt strongly about avoiding circular dependency.


>   3.11 Circular dependencies must be avoided.
>
>      For example, routing must not depend on look-ups in the Domain
>      Name System (DNS), since the updating of DNS servers depends on
>      successful routing.
>
> It might have been Lixia, because the point was explicit in her report
> of the plenary discussion at IETF 33:
>
>     "  In addition to the need
> for autoconfiguration on tools at low levels, renumbering requires
> changes to high-level protocols.  It also puts further reliance on the
> DNS system to keep up-to-date address binding.  To avoid circular
> dependency, DNS servers themselves will require special treatment,
> such as provider-independent addresses, assured connectivity, issues
> that are yet to be explored.  "

1/ the above was the writing by whoever took the minutes of the plenary.
It was not me.

2/ my presentation was an interim report of the group.  I recall that  
6 of us hashed over the slides' wording a few times during that IETF  
week prior to the plenary (didn't anyone notice some convoluted  
wording? reflection of compromises:)

Lixia