please see in line.
_____ 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2009年3月16日 16:53 收件人: [email protected]; [email protected] 抄送: [email protected] 主题: Re: [rrg] Two new I-Ds on Routing Architecture for the Next Generation Intern... Xiaohu, Maybe I have to backup a little bit: even with HIP involved, the IP address is still needed ( though certainly not forever). What is needed is a routable address which means from which you can derive a metric system (enabling to determine which route is shorter/longer, where is East and where is North,whether you want to include/exclude Autobahns). E164 country codes are fine for administrative routing (ITU-T) but not for computional routing. <Xiaohu>I agree. So we still use provider-aggregatable IPv6 addresses as locators in RANGI, which will keep the business model of Internet unchanged.</Xiaohu> It is not about flat versus hierarchical addresses, it is about metric versus non-metric inherent addresses. <Xiaohu></Xiaohu> Why is HIP a layer between IP and TCP/UDP ? Why is it not an extension of IP ? Mobility/Mobile Homing based on HIP enables changes of the underlying IP addresses. Great. But it would be bad if only the endpoints are enabled to change the preferred IP addresses. This should be the main job of the networking layer (dealing with congestion, blockings,time-of-day routing,...) i.e. of the routers in the middle of the path. Where it leads to can be observed: category B network layer <Xiaohu>I basically agree. So in RANGI, the site border router could enforce path selection for the outgoing packets by rewritting the LD ID part of the source locator.</Xiaohu> Xiaohu In einer eMail vom 16.03.2009 04:39:11 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [email protected]: Heiner, In RANGI, the locator is still provider-assigned IPv6 address with the exception that this IPv6 address is a IPv4-embeded IPv6 address. In fact, the country/region code is an example of the Administrative Domain ID which is a part of the hiearchical host ID. BTW, do you believe that the flat label is a good option for identifier (e.g. the HIT in HIP)? Xiaohu _____ 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2009年3月13日 18:38 收件人: [email protected]; [email protected] 抄送: [email protected] 主题: Re: [rrg] Two new I-Ds on Routing Architecture for the Next Generation Intern... Xiaohu, Your RANGI makes me think about further improvements of TARA: What is addressed by the IP-address might better be addressed by the host identifier of HIP. Whereas adressing the destination DFZ-router can be done better by means of its geographical location id, derived from its longitude / latitude position, which is a) non-political/more stable and b) summarizable (each point can be the center point of circles of any radius around). (= a main difference to RANGI's countrycode / reagion code ...). Then you don't need neither IPv4 nor IPv6 addresses. Is it a sacrileg to have thoughts like this? BTW, can anyone of the LISP supporters tell me and all the others how many ALT routers will be needed as to cope with today's (tomorrow's) internet ? Heiner In einer eMail vom 13.03.2009 10:49:58 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [email protected]: In fact, the RANGI proxy borrows some idea from the map&encap approach to support communication between RANGI-aware hosts and legacy IPv4/v6 hosts. To some extent, the map&encap can be considered as transition strategy for a host-based id/locator split approach.That's to say, the Strategy A and B (Herrin's Taxonomy)can be complementary. Any comment welcomed. Xiaohu > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Raj Jain [mailto:[email protected]] > 发送时间: 2009年3月6日 15:15 > 收件人: [email protected] > 主题: Two new I-Ds on Routing Architecture for the Next > Generation Internet (RANGI) > 重要性: 高 > > Earlier this week, we submitted two new drafts: > draft-xu-rangi-00.txt and draft-xu-rangi-proxy-00.txt > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-rangi and > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-rangi-proxy > > Both these drafts build on and explain the details of the > RANGI presentation I had given at the last RRG meeting in Minneapolis. > > We would appreciate receiving your comments and suggestions > for improvements. > > Abstracts of the drafts are as follows: > > draft-xu-rangi-00.txt > Routing Architecture for the Next Generation Internet (RANGI) > > IRTF Routing Research Group (RRG) is exploring a new > routing and addressing > architecture to meet the challenges that current Internet > is facing, especially in > terms of routing scalability. This internet draft > describes a new routing and > addressing architecture, called Routing Architecture for > the Next Generation > Internet (RANGI) as a solution to the problems of > scalability, mobility, > multihoming, and traffic engineering. RANGI is a hybrid > proposal that combines and > enhances the ideas from several proposals particularly > those based on > identifier/locator split approach. It introduces a > hierarchical and cryptographic > host identifier and adopts a hierarchical routing > mechanism to support routing > across multiple independent address spaces. To allow > smooth transition from IPv4 > to IPv6, it adopts an IPv6 address with an IPv4 embedded > in the last four bytes as > locator. This also simplifies renumbering in case of > change of service providers. > RANGI allows traffic engineering by allowing border > routers to overwrite the > source addresses. It allows policy control on ID to > address translation by having > a hierarchical resolution mechanism. > > draft-xu-rangi-proxy-00.txt > A Transition Mechanism for > Routing Architecture for the Next Generation Internet (RANGI) > > The Routing Architecture for the Next Generation Internet > (RANGI) is > a proposal for solving routing scalability, mobility, multihoming, > traffic engineering and other issues facing the current Internet. > RANGI is described in a separate document [RANGI]. This document > describes a transition mechanism for RANGI. With this mechanism, > legacy IPv4 or IPv6 hosts can communicate with RANGI > hosts, and vice > versa. This allows RANGI to be deployed incrementally in > the current > Internet. > > Thanks. > -Raj Jain and Xiaohu Xu > ----------------------------------------------------- > Raj Jain > Professor of Computer Science and Engineering > Washington University in St. Louis > Campus Box 1045, One Brookings Drive > St. Louis, MO 63130 > Phone: +1 314 935 4963 > Email: [email protected] > URL: http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain > ------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
