|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
G'day. Always fun to watch an exchange among entrenched perspectives... On 2/14/2012 9:31 AM, Bob Braden wrote:
However, Vint Cerf, the ARPA program manager, rules against variable length addresses and decreed the fixed length 32 bit word-aligned addresses of RFC 791. His argument was that TCP/IP had to be simple to implement if it were to succeed (and survive the juggernaut of the ISO OSI protocol suite).
Experience with development, deployment and operations using a core construct is not irrelevant when trying to upgrade an infrastructure function.
As I recall, there was essentially no experience with variable length addresses -- and certainly no production experience -- then or even by the early 90s, when essentially the same decision was made and for essentially the same reason.
It's not that variable length addressing is a bad idea; it's that it didn't get the research work and specification detail it needed, for introduction into what had become critical infrastructure. What I recall during the IPng discussions of the early 90s was promotion of the /concept/ of variable length addressing but without the experiential base to provide assurance we knew how it would operate.
Clearly the motivation for variable-length addresses is a Good Thing, since having it work properly would save needing to do an infrastructure change to quadruple the address space every 2-3 decades. (With 128-bit addressing, perhaps it will be longer; with the rapid expansion of the Internet, perhaps it will be sooner.)
But really I'll suggest that fixed-vs-variable addressing is essentially irrelevant to the question of transition ease and backward compatibility. What mostly affects that is effort. Development, deployment and operations effort. For an established infrastructure, the more a change is different from what already is used, the more effort it takes to introduce the new thing. (Versions of this point have been made on this thread repeatedly by other folk, and mostly everyone is ignoring the premise. I'll add that for folk who have noted the potential significance of my occasional consonance with the views of John Klensin, please be aware that its occurrence with Randy Bush is considerably more rare...)
Among the arguments being used to miss the point are:
On 2/14/2012 2:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:I'm sorry, but*any* coexistence between RFC791-IPv4-only hosts and hosts that are numbered out of an address space greater than 32 bits requires some form of address sharing, address mapping, and translation. It doesn't matter what choice we made back in 1994. Once you get to the point where you've run out of 32 bit addresses and not every node can support>32 bit addresses, you have the problem.
This notes an objective reality about a limit, while entirely missing the potential benefit available until reaching it. In this case, that was a 15-20 year window.
If the design goal had been restricted to the original "increase the address space bits", without encumbering it with additional architecture and functional changes, and had been based on re-use of the existing IPv4 scheme, the initial upgrade could have:
a) been with a module tacked on to existing IPv4 implementations and installed as a relatively minor software upgrade (albeit with some additional API hooks) to most implementations, rather than the traumatic installation of an entirely new stack
b) used trivial format-mapping translators rather than having to deal with the software and operational complexities of gateways that have to reconcile independent address spaces and other functionality
c) had essentially no incremental deployment or operations costsThis would have gotten the core of the larger address space mechanism deployed and operational long before it was needed, and the focus after that would have been restricted to /using/ the additional bits, rather than trying to solve a variety of additional problems.
Moving from re-using IPv4 addressing to expansion into new IPv6 bits for addressing could have then been a separate, incremental step. An important one, certainly. A step with its own challenges, sure. But incremental and narrow.
The classic project management point for major change is to minimize critical dependencies. Instead, the IPv6 increased them.
On 2/14/2012 3:56 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:The deployment problem was not due to technical issues, it was because the Internet changed to only deploy new technology that generated revenue in the short term.
The Arpanet did not convert to production use of TCP/IP until it was forced to by a central authority in 1983. Long before 'revenue' was an issue.
Absent coercion like this, organizations do not incur the considerable cost of infrastructure change in the absence of a strongly-perceived need that will have reasonably immediate and significant benefit. This is one of the very basic reasons that any change targeting longer-term benefit and with little-to-no short-term benefit needs to be made as painless as possible. In this case, painless would have meant being as compatible as possible, with small increments of change.
That is, I claim that absent well-funded research efforts and/or the leverage of a central authority, the history of the Net has /always/ been to focus on immediate need, not long-term benefit. (This includes the original motivations for inventing packet-switching. Lofty long-term visions notwithstanding, it was overcoming expensive [and fragile] long-haul telecom costs and hostile-environment outages that motivated the work. )
On 2/14/2012 7:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> You would not have two distinct routing tables for two independent >> Internets, but a single routing table for a single Internet. > > True, but why is this a particular advantage? It wouldn't have > affected the need for an update to BGP4, for example.With the sort of highly-constrained upgrade I've described above, no immediate change to BGP would have been required. That could have been deferred to a follow-on effort. The same applies to DHCP re-use.
On 2/14/2012 3:26 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:Happy eyeballs just points out problems with multi-homing in general.
Multi-homing is a problem above the IP layer, not at it. As classically noted, the problem starts with using addresses as identifiers.
d/ Unless I've misread, my brother and Scott have exactly opposite memories of which constituencies ere lobbying for and against variable-length addressing.
-- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf