In einer eMail vom 22.12.2009 23:47:35 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [email protected]:
PROPOSAL: Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) KEY IDEAS: - Provide crisp separation of Identifiers from Locators. - Identifiers name nodes, not interfaces. - Locators name subnetworks, rather than interfaces, so they are equivalent to an IP routing prefix. - Identifiers are never used for network-layer routing, whilst Locators are never used for Node Identity. - Transport-layer sessions (e.g. TCP session state) use only Identifiers, never Locators, meaning that changes in location have no adverse impact on an IP session. BENEFITS: - The underlying protocol mechanisms support fully scalable site multi-homing, node multi-homing, site mobility, and node mobility. - ILNP enables topological aggregation of location information while providing stable and topology-independent identities for nodes. All submitted solutions are dealing with mapping and aggregation in traditional way. Here: "ILNP enables topological aggregation of location information." It takes some Hercules'es to merge them. Obviously the mainstream prevails. By all this en vogue mapping and aggregating I start disliking the name of my own non-conforming TARA model. Effectively it is not topology AGGREGATING, instead it is SKIMMING the topology - the more remote the more,... While I envision confusing discussion about the flurry of submitted mainstream solutions, I may continue to improve/modify my concept without assistance, e.g. by varying the applied scale ratios not only according to the remoteness but as well according to the density of the network (scale ratio 1:1 for deserted though remote areas nevertheless..) I think the group will have to do a lot with bundling and reiterating what has been submitted. Keeping up my patience, Heiner
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
