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
