Peter,
I think, I did outline MY kind of clean-slate solution which is based
on topology aggregation and NOT on topology address aggregation (in the shortest
email-thread possible). I expressed why I can't display all of the solution at
the moment but I was clearly pointing out that the scalability problem is an
immanent problem of the DV- and address aggregating concept. I also launched the
postal delivery service discussion as to demonstrate this, i.e. that forwarding
inside much bigger networks while using another paradigm would never have this
problem. Hereby, it seems that my position has been understood.
drc wrote, not long ago:
To state the obvious, by divorcing the identity from the location,
you
allow that identity to "easily" change location.
Conceptually, the
benefits of such a split would include:
- end
users/sites having multiple providers (multihoming) without
having to
participate in the locator routing system
- end users/sites changing from one
provider to another over a long
time period (i.e., changing ISPs)
-
end users/sites changing from one provider to another over short
time
periods (i.e., mobility, depending on how the mapping is performed)
- ISPs
being able to rearrange network topology without significantly
impacting network users
IMO: Excellent, particularly, if said in view of my solution.
In einer eMail vom 07.07.2008 14:19:07 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
pesherb@yahoo.com:
Therefore, we can solve the scalability problem through
topological
address aggregation -IF- we remove -identity- from protocol
layer 3.
Yes and there is a consensus on that,
right?
Thanks,
Peter
--- On Fri, 7/4/08, William
Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> From: William Herrin
<bill@herrin.us>
> Subject: Re: [RRG] Long term clean-slate only
for the RRG?
> To: pesherb@yahoo.com
> Cc: HeinerHummel@aol.com,
jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu, rrg@psg.com
> Date: Friday, July 4, 2008, 11:38
AM
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Peter Sherbin
>
<pesherb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> -MY- point was that Line 1
need not be there at
> all. It is an
> >> identifier which
serves no role in the routing.
> >
> > It sure does as long
as there are more than one person
> living at the
> > same
address. The selection does not stop until it
> reached
> > the
"end". This is why defining the end
> point is critical. It will
help
> > with setting all of the identifier properties.
>
> Not so! Once the letter has reached the address, folks at
> the
address
> are allowed to open the letter and make further
decisions
> based on
> what's inside, handing it to a human being,
the trash
> can or even back
> to the post office with a new
address.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Marshall
Eubanks
> <tme@multicasttech.com> wrote:
> > It is not
clear to me how any of this discussion helps
> routing research
for
> > the Internet.
>
> Follow the logic
chain:
>
> A. -IF- topological address aggregation was practical,
the
> route
> scalability problem could be readily solved by
aggregating
> routes
> based on the address aggregation.
>
> B. Topological address aggregation would be practical -IF-
>
any
> endpoint's layer 3 address could be routinely and
>
recursively
> reassigned by the "upstream" routers through an
>
address assignment
> protocol without disrupting layer 4 AND the node
could
> sensibly handle
> multiple defaults with multiple source
addresses via a
> routing policy
> protocol.
>
> C.
An ephemeral address which changes without disturbing
> layer 4
would
> be possible -IF- the node identity value used by layers
4
> and above
> WAS NOT derived from the layer 3 address. In other
words,
> make layer 4
> treat the layer 3 address the way layer 3
treats the layer
> 2 address.
>
> Therefore, we can solve
the scalability problem through
> topological
> address
aggregation -IF- we remove -identity- from protocol
> layer 3.
>
>
> So, the relevance of the discussion about the name (line
1)
> in a
> postal address is this: The name (identity)
obviously
> isn't needed for
> the post office to successfully
route the letter. Routing
> still works
> if your name isn't
present on the envelope. If the same
> is true of
> network
packets in a hypothetical architecture (and it
> should be) then
>
we can solve the layer 3 routing problem by changing how
> the layer
4
> protocols determine a node's identity.
>
> After all,
I'm not "3005 Crane Drive,"
> I'm "William Herrin." And the
> post
office can deliver mail to "3005 Crane
> Drive" without knowing
>
whether it's intended for "William Herrin."
> Fix how layer 4
handles
> host identity and the layer-3 routing system no longer
>
needs to manage
> a large database.
>
> Of course, layer 4
now needs to manage a large map from
> identities to
> their
current locations, but we've already seen that
> well handled by
>
(insert drum roll) DNS.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................
herrin@dirtside.com
> bill@herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr.
...................... Web:
> <http://bill.herrin.us/>
>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
--
to
unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com 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
|