Regards, DY
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Toni Stoev <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. Yes. I meant, 'not globally 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 Great. > >> > >> > 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 > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
