[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[RRG] Is the flat identifier acceptable
> 发件人: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] 代表 Jari Arkko
> 发送时间: 2008年7月23日 22:18
> 收件人: Dino Farinacci
> 抄送: email@example.com; 'RJ Atkinson'; 'IRTF Routing RG'
> 主题: Re: [RRG] IEEE EUI-64 as an Identifier format
> > However, you get zero aggregation of ID space with EUI-64 assignments.
> > Not good for a mapping database.
> Yes. But I suspect that wishes about the aggregatability of the ID space
> are similar to past wishes about aggregatability of addresses. I.e.,
> wishes that do not necessarily become true.
> Note that aggregation of the ID space can come in two ways: ability to
> map range of IDs belonging to an organization vs. ability map an
> individual host's ID. I would suggest that we need the former. The
> latter would replace current scalability and aggregation problems with
> different scalability and aggregation problems.
Besides of the above mentioned issue, there are also some other issues with the flat identifier:
1) Burden the control policy configuration.
Since the flat identifier has no hierarchy, it's hard to enforce identifier-block based security control policy on firewalls. That's to say, only host granularity access control list is available.
2) Lack of trust and economic model in the id/locator mapping system.
Since these flat identifiers are randomly scattered across the namespace and stored at essentially random nodes, the id/locator resolution infrastructure has no "pay-for-your-own" model, unless the id/locator resolution infrastructure is managed by one and only one authority.
So I wonder whether the flat identifier is acceptable for the id/locator split architecture.
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg