re: [RRG] yetAnotherProposal: AS-number forwarding

[Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com>]

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: owner-rrg@psg.com [mailto:owner-rrg@psg.com] 代表 Lixia Zhang
> 发送时间: 2008年3月10日 12:22
> 收件人: Lars Westberg
> 抄送: rrg@psg.com
> 主题: Re: [RRG] yetAnotherProposal: AS-number forwarding
> 
> 
> On Mar 9, 2008, at 11:40 PM, Lars Westberg wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > I haven't had time to make a draft but I think it make sense for the
> > discussion. However, I don't know if it already have been discussed
> > so....
> >
> > The proposal are simple: re-use AS-numbers into the forwarding of
> > packets such that prefixes could be aggregated per AS. One simple
> > implemetation is that the packets are tunneled and that the tunnel-
> > address is associated to a AS-number. The AS-numbers can be assigned
> > to the IP-addresses by DNS or by define a small address-prefix to AS-
> > numbers.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> 
> in an ideal world, yes having AS number as part of address used for
> routing has great benefit.  see the slide from a talk in 2006
> (http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~lixia/0612Australia.pdf
> , but ignoring the title), slide 17 & 18 is about this.
> If we had a chance to influence address structure, you'd want to
> include other info in addition to AS (as large ASes span large areas,
> TE would want more info to do better job).
> we have another paper (http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~rveloso/papers/
> giro.pdf) showing the benefit for including location info (which
> should be a subfield after AS number)

With support of routing aggregation at any desired level, I can't image that
GIRO alone can do much help in routing scalability issue unless it brings in
some id/locator split idea, like GSE, SIX/ONE or HRA.

The first approach is to split the GIRO address into two parts: id and
locator. In this approach, IPv4 address part in GIRO address is used as id,
which means there is no need to change the hosts however it doesn't address
the IPv4 address depletion issue. From this perspective, it's much like eFIT
or LISP but it introduces a new locator space.

The second approach is to make hosts to negotiate the bunch of several GIRO
addresses.

The last approach is to introduce an independent host id namespace and uses
a whole GIRO address as locator.

Which one do you prefer? Or you have any other better idea?

Best wishes,
Xiaohu XU



--
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