On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Christian Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://users.piuha.net/chvogt/pub/2008/vogt-2008-hostname-oriented-stack.pdf
Hi Christian, I read your paper on the flight to MN. I understand this to be like strategy B variant B1a (http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures.html) except that the GUID is alphanumeric. Some thoughts: 1. The connection oriented protocol is probably the easiest problem for strategy-B systems. If push came to shove, SCTP would probably work though I think we can do better. If you want a challenge, try to figure out how the connectionless protocol will work. Expecting the app developer to figure out error correction was reasonable for UDP. Expecting the app dev to figure out complex reconnection via multiple source and destination locators is probably a bit much. We'll need a way to address this in the UDP-replacement itself while keeping it a lightweight, fundamentally connectionless protocol. We'll probably want acks built in this time so that layer-4 has a built-in expectation of packet returns to key the locator-changes off of. Maybe some sort of "ack now/ack later" bit so that the the destination stack knows whether the app needs an immediate ack or can wait a little while and receive a collection of them. 2. I suggest a different approach to legacy app support: have the new layer 4 treat the old-API IP address as a reformatted name in the new system. The app may think its talking to 1.2.3.4 but its really talking to 4.3.2.1.compatibility.net. Then equipment basically keeps the last IP address they had in the form of a name when IPv4 finally goes away. 3. Have you considered the differences with variant B1b? If you split GUID and SID in addition to splitting LOC, then the origin can start anonymous and the upgrade to a named source if the connection proves long-lived. The anonymous origin may be limited to a single LOC until it upgrades with something like a TCP optoin, but that keeps the protocol light-weight for the short-lived connections. 4. For layer 3 in strategy B I think we'll always want to do source-dependent routing. In other words, all routes will have both a source and destination prefix. In the core the source prefixes will mostly have a zero length but as you get towards the edge the upstream routes (like the default route) will match the ISP prefix for the given locator. That makes sure that the multiple LOCs for each host route out through the correct ISP. As a side benefit, LOC spoofing gets harder: if a host originates a packet with a false source address, it'll die at the first router which doesn't have a route for that source. Food for thought. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
