Darrel, your question is about "partitioning" and is very important. Although that should be interconnectivity inside a geopatch should be the normal case, it may happen that there are multiple parts which are not interconnected by intra-geopatch links. The concept must provide 2 things: 1) The capability to recognize that there are partitions, 2) extensions to the concept which handle them. a) by making sure to get to the right part (if possible). b) by enabling detours from inside via neighboring geopatches to the other inside part. Note, there could be a strict link from the other half of the globe into one of several partitions of some geopatch. Though it is important, it is yet just one detail. There is more: The commonly acquired maps which consisted of differently zoomed/skimmed parts of the surrounding internet might be enhanced by some set of intra-domain TARA-links (e.g. of a global operating ISP !). We all shouldn't mind facing new challenges. Heiner PS: Good luck to LISP. But isn't one jack-up solution enough to be pursued ? In einer eMail vom 12.01.2010 23:40:34 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [email protected]:
Are routers inside a given geo-patch required to interconnect? That is, will a packet which is delivered to any given router inside a geopatch be guaranteed to be delivered to some other router in the same geopatch? I believed Tony asked this question a few times, I've yet to see a clear answer. -Darrel ____________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 2:25 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs Lixia, Once more: My geolocation-based TARA concept is FUNDAMENTALLY different from all three proposals you are mentioning (Steve Deering's Metro-based..., Hain-draft, Giro). If I had no better computational tools at hand than Deering, Hain or the UCLA group, I would either be absolutely silent - or in the ILNP camp:-) Lixia, I know, you have a lot of ideas, how to make prefix-handling more sophisticated. My point however is: Get rid of any (Unicast) prefix building. TARA is about providing a well-skimmed topological view of the internet (which prevents table size problems as well as update churn). As opposed to all submitted proposals, TARA is the only one which can provide a perfect visualization: Use Google to search for a route from NY, Time Square, to S.F, Lambert Street - and play with the different zooms !!! Heiner In einer eMail vom 12.01.2010 19:39:25 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [email protected]: On Dec 27, 2009, at 7:43 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.) the above comment seems alluding to the long historical debate in geo- based addressing, that the young folks here may not be totally aware (I wish I were one of you people:). So here are a few pointers to related material. The concept was a rather old one, Greg Finn had some related proposal back in early 80s (I didn't bother to hunt down the URL but I believe a long tech report is still on the web). In the early days of IPv6 design, Steve Deering gave a strong pushing in this direction. The best ref is probably his plenary talk at July 1995 IETF meeting: "Metro-Based Addressing", ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/95jul/presentations/allocation/de ering.slides.ps This proposal was considered and debated at the time, but did not fly (though effort in that direction continued on, e.g. the draft-hain- ipv6-geo-addr mentioned above), mainly due to the reason that has been articulated in this thread of exchanges: the model does not match the ISP economics. However as it happens to any debate, opinions often swing further than proper. From time to time one hears the interpretation from that debate as "geo info cannot be used in routing" which is not the case. What that debate taught us (at least me) is that, for routing decisions, ISP info must take the high order bit. However after that high order bit is taken into account, geo info can be very useful to further optimize the routing decisions. as a simple evaluation, we used the BGP data from Rotueviews and RIPE for a measurement study, the result is reported in a paper a few years back: "Geographically Informed Inter-Domain Routing" http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~rveloso/papers/giro.pdf or if you just want a quick look of the idea, here is the presentation slides: http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~rveloso/papers/07ICNP_giro.ppt Lixia _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
