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

["William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us>]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:26 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> 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 note that it is predicated on the assumption that routing is
> required to follow business relationships. If routing was allowed to
> follow some more-aggregable criteria (e.g. geography) the statement
> might not be true. However, I agree that routing is required to follow
> business relationships.

Apperantly I explained myself very poorly. Let me take another stab at it.

I used a trick here that often helps me see more sides of a problem: I
turned it upside down. I took the object as a given and looked for
things that would make it false.

Given: Any routing solution must either make changes to the host
software or maintain a big mapping database.

Query: What would make this statement false?

1. If we don't separate location and identity then this statement is
false because there is no map database, just a routing database.

2. If we find an algorithmic way to map identifiers to locations then
we'll have a map algorithm instead of a map database.

Such an algorithm has been proposed: geographic aggregation of IP
addresses coupled with geographic routing of those aggregates. The
scheme would require neither changes to the host nor a big mapping
database.

However, geographic routing violates a basic assumption: that the
routing must follow the business relationships between the various
entities. A is not permitted to send packets to B by way of C who has
no direct or indirect business relationship with either A or B.

If X follows from Y and Y follows from Z then X follows from Z. The
host-change-or-big-database statement would be falsified if we were
permitted to design a protocol that did not follow the business
relationships between the parties using it, even if we do a LOC/ID
split.


That's not exactly a shocking insight. Since it was the only other
falsifier I found that wasn't either completely absurd or already
covered, it seemed worth pointing out.


Anyway, having determined that Noel's statement is falsifiable and
having found nothing that might reasonably falsify it, I agree with
statement.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

--
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