> I tend to think that the reasons are so obvious... Precisely. To function smoothly the Internet requires a set of access points patterned in and around planet's surface, atmo- / aquasphere and crust (pick the "proper" density of AP/sq.km). Keep in mind that any end system can connect seamlessly (wired or wireless) to any access point. The model suggests that an individual ISP supports a certain part of AP grid with no control whatsoever over end systems. No single ISP seems to be excited about such a model.
Thanks, Peter --- On Mon, 12/28/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs > To: "RRG" <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, December 28, 2009, 2:02 AM > > On Dec 27, 2009, at 10:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On 2009-12-28 14:17, Xu Xiaohu wrote: > > ... > >>> This argument fails for exactly the same > reason that geographically > >>> based BGP aggregation fails. > >> > >> Brian, who has ever done it ? > > > > Nobody, as far as I know. > > > >> Why do you say this and what do you mean by saying > this ? > > > > There have been a lot of geo-based or metro-based > proposals over > > the years. Most recently, draft-hain-ipv6-geo-addr. > > As far as I know, none of them has ever been deployed, > because > > this isn't how Internet economics works. There is no > financial > > incentive to deploy geographically based exchange > points which also > > act as address delegators to customers. (Note, there > is no technical > > argument against it. But nobody knows how to make > money out of it.) > > I'm curious. Has anyone ever fully/clearly articulated the > *reasons* behind the absence of financial incentive to > embrace addressing and routing solutions that would create > (actually, to restore) a binding association between > addressing and geography -- or better yet, made a positive > argument for the financial incentives and broader economic > factors that often recommend deploying networks in > aggressively geography-indifferent patterns? > > I tend to think that the reasons are so obvious as to be > self-evident, but I'd be quite surprised to find that > everyone's list of self-evident reasons is identical. > > Can anyone point me to some approximation of an > "authoritative list" of reasons? If not, does anyone see any > merit (or problem) in the idea of compiling such a list? > > Thanks in advance, > > TV > > > By the way, I don't consider HRA locators to be > geo-based. They > > are fundmentally PA locators. The geographic part is > secondary. > > In RANGI, you don't mention any geo component of the > locators. > > > > But this was all a side comment. What I meant is that > the problem > > of mapping PI identifiers to PA locators is just the > same as > > mapping geo addresses to topological addresses. I > don't see any > > evidence that the mapping can be significantly more > compact > > than if the identifiers are assigned randomly. Wei > Zhang seemed > > to argue that by some special assignment scheme for > identfiers, > > we can get a significantly smaller map. I would like > to see > > the data supporting that. > > > >> It must be something quite different from what I > understand. > >> > >> This thread "Aggregatable EIDs" is concerned about > aggregating EIDs and the problems with mapping the prefixes > to RLOCs. This objective wouldn't even exist if both EID and > RLOC-ID are asigned a "third" information (I proposed > it not long ago) which itself is universally routable and > which wouldn't need any authoritative provisioner either. No > need for aggregating any two EIDs! No need for mapping any > EID-IP-address to any RLOC-IP-address provided that they > share a common attribute that is derived from geographical > coordinates. > > > > My point is that aggregation of EIDs is basically > artificial. > > > >> > >> By sticking to non-routable identifiers none > of the 14 solutions becomes any better than LISP. > > > > At some level they are probably all isomorphic, yes. > Except maybe ILNP. > > > >> Note, not only IPv4 / IPv6 addresses are > non-routable, AS numbers aren't either. > > > > But there are about 10 times fewer active AS numbers > than there are active > > prefixes. So flat-routing on AS numbers would gain one > order of magnitude > > immediately. > > > >> With 99 % of the hosts being mobile, wouldn't it > be appropriate to have mainly provider-independent FQDNs > > > > Well, yes, which is why Christian Vogt's proposal for > name-based > > sockets is very interesting. But actually it only > hides the problem > > in the socket layer; the problem doesn't go away. > > > >> > >> and a DNS that is fairly up-to-date with the > correlation between a respective HIT and the current > location, i.e. completely independent of the current AS? > > > > If the locator is PA, sure. But that's the problem - > making the locator PA. > > > >> > >> Since the HIT is already a provider-independent > host identifier, why should each host be assigned with a > FQDN as another provider-independent ID? Taken the current > cell-phone mobile network as an example, does every > cell-phone need a FQDN-like global name besides the > cell-phone number itself? > > > > Well, until people drop the stupidity of reverse DNS > lookup as a "security check" > > it's very hard to drop this. Of course it's bogus. (Do > you really care > > that my FQDN right now is > 121.98.142-??.bitstream.orcon.net.nz?) > > > > Brian > > _______________________________________________ > > rrg mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
