[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