Re: [RRG] Long term clean-slate only for the RRG?

["Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>]

Comments in line:

Noel Chiappa wrote:
...
> My point was that, if my thinking is correct (and if it's not, can someone
> please point out where I've gone wrong), it's not reasonable to
> simultaneously say 'I want location/identity separation' and also say 'I
> don't want to change existing host software' and 'I think a big mapping
> database is not feasible'. If you want the first, one of the next two _has_
> to give; the only question is _which_.
>
> I phrase it in high-level terms, not in terms of any particular proposal, to
> make clear that it seems to me to be a fundamental limitation. If I am
> confused, can someone please straighten me out!

Sounds right to me.  If there is going to be a split, someone has to 
deal with the relationship between the parts.  If the network is dealing 
with that relationship, then that is a large mapping database.  If the 
host is dealing with it, then the host is changing (and may or may not 
need a large mapping database.)

> If not, then I think it would be interested to have people hum on i) do we
> want location/identity separation, and, if 'yes', ii) do we a) change hosts,
> or b) accept the need for a network-sized mapping database - making clear, at
> the time we ask i), that it implies having to make a choice at ii).

It seems to me that separating out the way the communication system 
looks at the identity of the communicating parties and the way it looks 
at the location of those parties is a useful improvement in the system.
I am willing to accept host changes, if that is what it takes to get 
there.  (In fact, to really introduce the notion of identity there 
probably have to be host changes.  Identity ought to be constant across 
the interfaces the host uses to talk as much as across the interfaces 
the containing site uses to talk to the core.)

>     > I think the RRG has only focused on loc/id split and really hasn't gone
>     > into greater depth with other routing architectures.
>
> Ah, I don't consider the location/identity split a 'routing architecture'.
> It's an ancillary aspect of the overall system architecture, one which has at
> best some influence on particular desired operational goals having to do with
> routing (e.g. provider independence).
>
> To me, routing architectures are about things like 'what entity choses the
> path the packets flow along', and 'how are those paths computed', 'what data
> does that computation need', 'how is that data distributed', etc.
> network-sized-mapping-database.

I think that the question of whether the system has separate notions of 
identity and location is an important architectural question.  (I use 
"system" because it is quite possible to construct approaches where the 
identity is above transport, or is an opaque object used by transport, 
rather than being below transport.  Also, I use system because I do not 
think it is either practical or effective to try to re-architect the IP 
layer and its forwarding without looking at things around it, and 
possibly making some changes there too.)

> 	Noel

--
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