re: [RRG] Consensus? End-user networks need their own portable address space

[Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com>]

>     > Given that so much of Internet traffic is going to be with mobile
>     > endpoints, I don't see how can continue using the current "address"
as
>     > an identifier good enough to support session continuity. The only
way
> I
>     > can think of is to isolate applications from what's really going on
>     > underneath, and present them with a token they can use for
>     > identification and allow them to think it's a real address.
> 
> General agreement with all thatw, but I query the "I don't see how [we]
can
> continue" part. Look at what the phone system did, when faced with demands
> for number portability (i.e. provider independence), etc. They still use
> 'phone numbers' in the existing externally-visible interface, but those
are
> now directory entry names, and get mapped into 'real' phone numbers away
from
> the sight of the users.
> 
> Which reminds me of another observation I had about IPv4 - it has the same
> packet format for router-host and router-router interactions. Now, there's
no
> law of nature that says they have to be the same - it was done that way,
back
> when, for reasons of simplicity and economy of effort - but if there's a
good
> engineering reason to use differing ones, I don't see any fundamental
reason
> not to. We could keep the IPvN packet format as a service interface, and
use
> something else between the routers.

If so, the problems with map&encap approachs will still exist in your
mentioned approach, such as initial packet loss/delay due to the id/loc
mapping. Why not implement the map&encap function on the hosts since a
clean-slate approach is welcomed? 

Best regards,
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