[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Distribution CPG Protocol - Some Thoughts
Stephen Thomas writes:
> At 10:22 AM 2001-01-05 -0500, Oliver Spatscheck wrote:
> >Internally we define a region as:
> >
> >REGION : <NAME> {
> > <IP>,<PREFIXLEN>;
> > <IP>,<PREFIXLEN>;
> > ....
> >}!
>
> If a CDN advertises (or otherwise claims to "cover") a particular IP
> address prefix, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean (a) that the
> prefix is an atomic subnet, and (b) that there's a surrogate on that subnet?
>
> Here's an example of where things might get tricky. Suppose I own the IP
> addresses 172.16.0.0/16. If I've further subnetted to 172.16.1.0/24,
> 172.16.2.0/24, etc., is there any way I can claim 172.16.0.0/16 in the CDN
> protocol? Do I have to have a surrogate on all 256 subnets? Just on the
> subnets that actually exist at the moment? Or can I just put one surrogate
> (say, 172.16.1.1) and argue that no one else is going to get any "closer"
> to the other subnets? (Even if 172.16.99.0/24 is connected by a cruddy
> radio link that's no better than 9600 baud?)
>
I think you are describing one of the important problems we have to address.
My take would be that you can define attributes for regions, with some
standard attributes like " I own the regions IP address space and have proxies
" to some attributes which are custom between CDNs. However, it would be nice
if even those custom attributes could be communicated in our framework.
> Is this stuff that we even care about in a protocol? Or should we leave it
> open to "good citizenship". After all, the IETF doesn't have a police
> force. So even if we said that you had to have a surrogate physically on
> the subnet, who will punish the liars.
>
I don't think we should care about the enforcment of it. This I would
say is up to the participating CDNs to figure out. However, we
should be able to specify those properties and support as much
as we can the verification of such advertisments somewhere in the
framework.
Oliver