In fact, I find this is essentially the same idea as depicted in RFC1955<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1955> by Bob Hinden back in 1996... except that he proposed AD-headers while I thought of AD(==AS) appendix in the option field of IP packets.
He also comments - that the scheme can be extended to local (non-globally unique) addresses, (no worrying anymore about address depletion) and - that even IS-IS can be used (not necessarily BGP or OSFP) to the additional benefit that IS-IS routes on actual endpoints, (not PoA or interfaces). Curious to know why this was rejected in IPNG? Regards, DY On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Dae Young KIM <[email protected]> wrote: > Like... > > o Packets would be appended by an AS number of the destination at > exiting its own AS. > > o DFZ routers sees only AS numbers in determining the next hop router. > > o The destination IP address would be examined only after the packet > has entered the destination AS. > > Regards, > DY > > > > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Dae Young KIM <[email protected]> wrote: >> This sounds similar to an idea I raised some months ago; inter-domain >> routing based on AS numbers. >> >> Some people were criticizing that AS's are not of equal scales (from a >> tiny one to a global scale) and that it is not a useful/practical >> granularity. >> >> Studying the IRON, the enterprise also can be as small as SOHO and as >> big as the entire global Internet. Not much different. >> >> Then why not try an inter-domain routing (solely) based on AS numbers? >> >> Nonsense? >> >> Regards, >> DY >> >> >> >> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:13 AM, Toni Stoev <[email protected]> wrote: >>> На Friday 07 May 2010 22:40:28 [email protected] написа: >>>> Toni, >>>> I am sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. >>>> >>> >>> Heiner, >>> >>> Currently inter-domain routing is based on IP address prefixes, which are >>> intra-domain context, and on AS number paths. >>> The simple and scalable model is the inter-domain routes to be only AS >>> paths. >>> >>> Toni >>> >>>> >>>> Heiner >>>> >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- >>>> Von: Toni Stoev <[email protected]> >>>> An: IRTF RRG >>>> <[email protected]>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_Inter-Domain_Routing >>>> Verschickt: Fr., 7. Mai. 2010, 0:41 >>>> Thema: Re: [rrg] RG futures >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday 06 May 2010 12:02:39 [email protected] sent: >>>> > >>>> > How about an honest discussion that deals with the real causes of the >>>> scalability problem! >>>> > The scalability (size) issue only unveils how miserably bad the (most >>>> important) IETF routing paradigms are. Particularly: >>>> ... >>>> > Heiner >>>> >>>> Intra-domain routing is as simple as node location naming follows topology. >>>> >>>> Inter-domain routing has issues with intra-domain context – route >>>> identification >>>> prefixes based on intra-domain identity/location naming, so called >>>> addresses. >>>> Inter-domain routing has issues with route destination/endpoint ambiguity >>>> – what >>>> an inter-domain route leads to, node(s) or autonomous system? >>>> >>>> Regards to all. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rrg mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg >>> >> > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
