> From: Dae Young KIM <[email protected]>
>> Locator == network (or loosely ASN in today's bgp4 routed world)
> Perhaps, then, you .. means that the locator is a AS number(ASN)
> ...
> Locator was meant to an address that IP would use in routing as it uses
> IPv4 or IPv6 as routing locator.
Some people think that internetwork 'location names' should name just the
physical network, and that the interface 'address' is a separate name; the
reason they give is that they are conceptually separate concepts, and the
names that result are from separate namespaces. (I must confess I don't
really understand this view, so I can't explain it perfectly - perhaps
someone else can?)
I view things somewhat differently, and in a way that's similar to the one
you give above. To me, what is important about a namespace is i) what is
being named, and ii) what the characteristics of the name are; which to me
need to be driven by what the main use/uses of the name will be.
For i), I would like to be able to name interfaces - because it is to an
interface that the system of routers needs to deliver a packet. However, that
covers a large variety of names (e.g. a globally unique ID could name
intefaces), so I need to think also about ii) to pick a kind of name for
interfaces. For ii), I would like to see a structured name, which can be used
to select/compute a path to the destination in a very large network.
I suppose one could say that those names are concatenations of a) a
structured name for the physical network, and b) the name of an interface (as
I started by mentioning), but I don't see a lot of value in separating the
two in a way which is globally visible - it is only when one gets to the
destination physical network that one needs to be able to separate the two
parts.
> I would use locator (IPv4 or IPv6 address) for intra-domain routing,
> but not for inter-domain routing.
My view is that the strict separation between just 'intra-domain' routing and
'inter-domain' routing is a simplistic one, and one that I do not think will
last. I hink that what we really need is the ability to have multiple levels,
and not just two - and I think those should be within a unified overall
routing system.
> In this sense, my idea and LISP's meet. Both uses ASN for inter-domain
> routing.
LISP does not use ASN for any forwarding decision; it uses IPvN addresses
(from the RLOC namespace).
Not that LISP really has a routing component at the moment anyway - it
depends entirely on the existing routing for packet carriage.
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
