[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] new draft on " A Taxonomy for New Routing and Addressing Architectu...
On Apr 15, 2008, at 2:45 AM, HeinerHummel@aol.com wrote:
In einer eMail vom 14.04.2008 19:26:26 Westeuropäische Normalzeit
schreibt lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU:
It looks to me the above confusion seems coming from not defining
"topology" first.
What we mean by topology is Internet topology (not geographic
topology), i.e. the ISP AS interconnectivity.
The German E.164 telephone numbers are NETWORK TOPOLOGICAL as the
digit-to-link mapping was even done mechanically (formerly). Yes, it
was up to human planning, that neighboring digit values was chosen
for neighboring geographical areas. And yes, there are violations to
the initial configuration from which we can learn: The area/city
codes for Munich and Frankfurt once were 811 resp. 611. They changed
to 89 resp. 69 as to yield one digit to the user number (enforced by
the growth of both cities' populations).
Will say: E.164 isn't any better. It is also complying with
"addresses may follow topology"
thanks for the above information.
Address aggregation is cumbersome, it is subject for change, and
also there are a lot of addresses which do not fit for aggregation.
Also, AS numbers can't be aggregated either,right?!
good questions. Here's my thought:
1/ (since we don't have new terminology ready yet, please allow me to
use the ones from the taxonomy draft here) the purpose of sorting out
TAAs and TIAs is to reduce the factors that easily break TAA
aggregation.
e.g. if user sites are outside TAAs, then their multihoming would not
affect TAA's aggregation.
2/ you are right that AS numbers do not aggregate. Based on our
current data and current understanding, the number of ISP ASes does
not seem causing scalability concerns. It is true that the number of
ASes in the global routing system has been increasing (rapidly), by
and large the growth is from user site ASes.
But :"Topology may also follow addressing" which is clearly the
better choice.
Heiner
To help me understand what you meant by the above: would you consider
metro-based addressing as an example of "Topology may also follow
addressing" ?
If that is the case, I wonder what's your consideration that leads to
the above conclusion (but lets take this specific discussion off RRG)
Lixia
--
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