In einer eMail vom 21.11.2007 00:43:31 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
tli@cisco.com:
You may or may not see it as a different type of locator/ID
split. It is first of all a scalable way for routing.
Wrt. ID: In the years 2013/2014 we might be glad to continue with IPv4
because it would provide enough addresses which are unique within one
geo-patch.
Let's say by traditional reachability-info-based determination of the
egress node.
Partitioning is always a troublemaker :-). One way to deal with is to
cheat: If I remember correctly, then not all islands of the Hawaii island group
are in the same time zone, but for practical reason they have all
Honolulu time.
But of course, this problem should be dealt with by the protocol: We may do
something which allows us to detect e.g. that Alaska (which is truly the case)
has a partitioned road system, e.g. by recognizing that all its representative
nodes in the hierarchically next upper level (country map) are more than those
that the current Anchorage node can discern on its state map.Yes, it may involve
a crankback detour.
This problem would also show up in case of partitioning due to some
link failures. I am much in favor that any viewed topology is the result of a
routing protocol and not of any configurational data.
Configurational, IANA-based info should only guide the way how the
hierarchy evolves, i.e. which lower geo-patches should be combined to the next
upper geo-patch.
Political borders must not have any influence ! However
IANA may optimize the geo-patches,e.g. as to get larger geo-patches
on the oceans than on soil.
But there may be further ideas how to deal with partitioned geo-patches
(have a number for each part ?!)
Note: Because the hierarchical network view is the result of a routing
protocol the partion may also hit any larger geo-patch at any upper level
(partitioning of a "country" needs to be handled, likewise.)
Heiner
|