[RRG] Is the flat identifier acceptable

[Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com>]

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: owner-rrg@psg.com [mailto:owner-rrg@psg.com] 代表 Jari Arkko
> 发送时间: 2008年7月23日 22:18
> 收件人: Dino Farinacci
> 抄送: tony.li@tony.li; 'RJ Atkinson'; 'IRTF Routing RG'
> 主题: Re: [RRG] IEEE EUI-64 as an Identifier format
> 
> Dino,
> 
> > However, you get zero aggregation of ID space with EUI-64 assignments.
> > Not good for a mapping database.
> 
> Yes. But I suspect that wishes about the aggregatability of the ID space
> are similar to past wishes about aggregatability of addresses. I.e.,
> wishes that do not necessarily become true.
> 
> Note that aggregation of the ID space can come in two ways: ability to
> map range of IDs belonging to an organization vs. ability map an
> individual host's ID. I would suggest that we need the former. The
> latter would replace current scalability and aggregation problems with
> different scalability and aggregation problems.

Besides of the above mentioned issue, there are also some other issues with the flat identifier:

1) Burden the control policy configuration.

Since the flat identifier has no hierarchy, it's hard to enforce identifier-block based security control policy on firewalls. That's to say, only host granularity access control list is available.

2) Lack of trust and economic model in the id/locator mapping system.

Since these flat identifiers are randomly scattered across the namespace and stored at essentially random nodes, the id/locator resolution infrastructure has no "pay-for-your-own" model, unless the id/locator resolution infrastructure is managed by one and only one authority. 

So I wonder whether the flat identifier is acceptable for the id/locator split architecture. 

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