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

[Peter Sherbin <pesherb@yahoo.com>]

Therefore, we can solve the scalability problem through topological
address aggregation -IF- we remove -identity- from protocol layer 3.

Yes and there is a consensus on that, right?

Thanks,

Peter


--- On Fri, 7/4/08, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:

> From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
> Subject: Re: [RRG] Long term clean-slate only for the RRG?
> To: pesherb@yahoo.com
> Cc: HeinerHummel@aol.com, jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu, rrg@psg.com
> Date: Friday, July 4, 2008, 11:38 AM
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Peter Sherbin
> <pesherb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> -MY- point was that Line 1 need not be there at
> all. It is an
> >> identifier which serves no role in the routing.
> >
> > It sure does as long as there are more than one person
> living at the
> > same address. The selection does not stop until it
> reached
> > the "end". This is why defining the end
> point is critical. It will help
> > with setting all of the identifier properties.
> 
> Not so! Once the letter has reached the address, folks at
> the address
> are allowed to open the letter and make further decisions
> based on
> what's inside, handing it to a human being, the trash
> can or even back
> to the post office with a new address.
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Marshall Eubanks
> <tme@multicasttech.com> wrote:
> > It is not clear to me how any of this discussion helps
> routing research for
> > the Internet.
> 
> Follow the logic chain:
> 
> A. -IF- topological address aggregation was practical, the
> route
> scalability problem could be readily solved by aggregating
> routes
> based on the address aggregation.
> 
> B. Topological address aggregation would be practical -IF-
> any
> endpoint's layer 3 address could be routinely and
> recursively
> reassigned by the "upstream" routers through an
> address assignment
> protocol without disrupting layer 4 AND the node could
> sensibly handle
> multiple defaults with multiple source addresses via a
> routing policy
> protocol.
> 
> C. An ephemeral address which changes without disturbing
> layer 4 would
> be possible -IF- the node identity value used by layers 4
> and above
> WAS NOT derived from the layer 3 address. In other words,
> make layer 4
> treat the layer 3 address the way layer 3 treats the layer
> 2 address.
> 
> Therefore, we can solve the scalability problem through
> topological
> address aggregation -IF- we remove -identity- from protocol
> layer 3.
> 
> 
> So, the relevance of the discussion about the name (line 1)
> in a
> postal address is this: The name (identity) obviously
> isn't needed for
> the post office to successfully route the letter. Routing
> still works
> if your name isn't present on the envelope. If the same
> is true of
> network packets in a hypothetical architecture (and it
> should be) then
> we can solve the layer 3 routing problem by changing how
> the layer 4
> protocols determine a node's identity.
> 
> After all, I'm not "3005 Crane Drive,"
> I'm "William Herrin." And the
> post office can deliver mail to "3005 Crane
> Drive" without knowing
> whether it's intended for "William Herrin."
> Fix how layer 4 handles
> host identity and the layer-3 routing system no longer
> needs to manage
> a large database.
> 
> Of course, layer 4 now needs to manage a large map from
> identities to
> their current locations, but we've already seen that
> well handled by
> (insert drum roll) DNS.
> 
> 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