Heiner,
your proposal is interesting. But I think it is orthogonal to the new
network protocol stack proposal that I am making. I don't see how one
would enable or improve the other.
In fact, whereas your proposal changes the routing system, my proposal
is fundamentally host-based. The way in which my proposal will benefit
the routing system is instead:
- by making the use of provider-allocated addressing in edge networks
more acceptable, and
- by making (unilateral) IP address translation a more acceptable
solution for provider-independent addressing in edge networks
without compromising global routing scalability.
The reason for (1) is that renumbering becomes simpler with the new
network protocol stack since it no longer affects applications/host. The
reason for (2) is that the new network protocol stack makes applications
immune to unilateral IP address translation.
- Christian
On Nov 11, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
are you thinking of forwarding packets based on the destination
hostname while the packet is within an edge network? That could, of
course, be an extension to the proposal I am making.
Yes. My saying since 45 is of course that there is no reason to route
based on worldwide user reachability information dissemination,
i.e. that this scalability problem can be eliminated completely.
Provided: Each DFZ router has a consistent view of a well-sparsed
internet topology, while knowing the geo-locations of all viewed
nodes,
and the geolocation related to the IP packets' destination which
should
be the geolocation of that router toward which forwarding shall/
could be
done without looking at the destination IP address.
That router is - normally - a router of the service provider at the
service provider's site. Behind that point routing could either be
done
traditionally, i.e. based on the destination IPv4 resp. IPv6 address
or
based on something else like: e.g. host name or E.164 without DNS
mapping, or... or...or... And of course also based on geolocation
information of an intra-domain edge network.
The proposal
right now, however, uses IP addresses for routing; the hostnames are
included only in the first packets of a connection in order to sync
the two peers.
I know.
Heiner
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
