re: [RRG] yetAnotherProposal: AS-number forwarding

[Peter Sherbin <pesherb@yahoo.com>]

> 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?

ID/Loc split comes in various forms over and over again with people seem to
concentrate on a soft transition of the current system into a scalable one with a
minimal disruption. As prudent as it sounds it might not yield anticipated benefits.
More desirable approach is to abandon the current Internet entirely and build a new
one from two independent, separately managed pools of id: a locator pool and a name
pool, where names move freely around a rigid hierarchy of locators. A real time
formation of a loc+name pair provides a source/destination lasting from minutes for
mobile devices to years for a static gear.

Thank you,

Peter


> 
> 
> > -----�ʼ�ԭ��-----
> > ������: owner-rrg@psg.com [mailto:owner-rrg@psg.com] ����
Lixia Zhang
> > ����ʱ��: 2008��3��10�� 12:22
> > �ռ���: Lars Westberg
> > ����: rrg@psg.com
> > ����: 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
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 


--
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