Thank you Dae Young for the warm welcome. On 29.03.2010 at 12:02:57 Dae Young KIM sent: > Additional implications: > > o Node (IP) address changes at mobility. (It is not fixed, globally > unique...)
Node locator changes at mobility. It is not fixed, but is routing domain unique. > o Intra-domain routing is done based on node addresses, not on PoA > (interface) addresses > > o There's nothing like PoA (interface) address in the scenario. > Gone. This is no problem, since the same information is with the > sub-layer node address, e.g., MAC address. > > Regards, > DY > > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Dae Young KIM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Toni, > > > > This is one of the descriptions I'd like the most in this mailing > > list. Wonderful. > > > > Question: Is LINP based on the ideas you describe? Hope so. Otherwise... Honestly, I don't know. > > I might have the same views as yours, but the parts I like the most include: > > > > - Name the node, not the interface. > > > > - Do inter-domain routing by use of domain IDs. > > > > To go a little bit further, a picture I have would be: > > > > - Use FQDN as the name for your content/application/node... > > > > - Use IP address to name to nodes; Redefine the meaning of the IP > > address, it names the node, not the interface. > > > > - In the intra-domain routing, this nod (IP) address would be used > > just like now with OSPF. > > > > - Use domain IDs in inter-domain routing. > > > > In this way, > > > > - except redefinition of the meaning of IP address, > > > > - nearly nothing changes; > > > > o (Possibly extended) DNS can be used as before. > > o Existing hosts may not be changed, keeping their IPvX > > addresses, perhaps only one is enough > > o OSPF works just the same > > o Basic operations of BGP can be kept with new formatting > > based on domain IDs. If current ASN infra is not appropriate, then > > maybe design new numbering scheme for domains. > > o Multi-homing will be inherent, now that nodes are named, > > not the interface. > > o Mobility is just dynamic multi-homing, perhaps a bit too fast. :-) > > - one important implication is: > > > > o Now that inter-domain routing is done by use of domain IDs, > > host IP addresses need not be globally unique. They can be local. We > > don't even need IPv6. The number space of IPv4 is already huge enough > > for any local domains. Of course, there might be additional benefits > > for using IPv6. They can choose to use IPv6, no problem. They are > > local anyway. > > > > I've been away from this ML for long, and do we have any proposals > > close to my idea or to your idea? I might like to support such a > > proposal. > > Most of my ideas imply variable length number sequences, which are realized through variable length number writing: Binary Indicators-Termination Sequence http://bit-sequence.fdns.net/content.en.html There is an efficient way of elaborating documents – the wiki. I am going to make use of this one: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki > > > > Regards, > > DY > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Toni Stoev <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Please write something along these lines - I think it would be a good > >>> contribution to the RRG and would stimulate further constructive > >>> discussions. > >>> > >>> - Robin > >> > >> I came to this group with a clear vision on network architecture. > >> What I liked here were the well defined design goals. I agree more input > >> is relevant. > >> Things that I envision: [Slow down for reading.] > >> Naming node, not interface, with locator, identifier. > >> Strict topology following by locator, that is, every next hop towards a > >> node within a routing domain to be inscribed. Next hop inscriptions – > >> neighbor identifiers. This implies variable locator size. > >> Intra-domain routing then becoming piece of cake: locator longest prefix > >> match. This implies a starting node in every routing domain. > >> Binding of routing domain identifier with locator. In a role-based > >> architecture: locator role implies routing domain ID role (roles realized > >> as header options). > >> Then, inter-domain routing based not on intra-domain locator( prefixe)s, > >> but on domain identifiers only. Routing domain IDs then forming paths (No > >> reinventing the wheel.). > >> Node identification system: bidirectional numerical DNS-like system. > >> Bidirectional means a node identified knows locator of its parent and the > >> parent knows locator of its child. These acquaintance IDs forming fully > >> qualified node number sequence – the node identifier. > >> I enjoy this part, quoting other people: Node mobility is dynamic > >> multihoming. Having node identification system, a node roams with locators > >> coming and going, and is discoverable through its identifier. > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
