I do not believe that separating intra- and inter- domain routing is
necessary from a theoretical perspective. (From a practical
perspective, I do not believe it is possible to erase the distinction in
the current world.)
As a demonstration of why I consider this unnecessary, I point to either
PNNI or Nimrod. In both cases, the same protocol can be used for
intra-, inter-, and in fact iteratively as one wishes, with effective
scale. Whether those protocols themselves provide ID/Locator
separation, or whether they would need to be coupled to such a
separation, is left as an exercise for someone else. It doesn't matter
for this question.
Even IS-IS was demonstrated to be able to scale iteratively to multiple
levels of hierarchy.
Heck, if we could change to a PIP-like system, the very question would
become moot.
Yours,
Joel
Toni Stoev wrote:
Tony,
17.3. Rationale, sentence 3 has an extra "is".
A location/identity separation that we are about to recommend is a good thing.
Many combinations of problems may come out of a wrong design. The right design
has to service the valuable practices.
In my opinion the missing basic right approaches for the graph-resembling
packet-switched data communication network are:
– A topological location name, the locator, must target node, not interface.
– Intra-domain and inter-domain routing must be distinct. Intra-domain routing
must be based on locators that follow topology. Inter-domain routing must be
based on routing domain IDs (AS numbers) and not on IP address prefixes.
– [Location/identity split] There must be a node identification system that
maps a given universal identifier to a tuple of {routing domain ID + locator}.
The solution is numerical bi-directionally aware DNS-like system. The DNS
system shall then map names to identifiers.
Good faith,
Toni
On Tuesday 25 May 2010 at 11:03:29 Tony Li sent:
FYI...
I hope to do another editorial pass, so comments and additions are still
welcome.
Regards,
Tony
------ Forwarded Message
From: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 18:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: I-D Action:draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-08.txt
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : Recommendation for a Routing Architecture
Author(s) : T. Li
Filename : draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-08.txt
Pages : 70
Date : 2010-05-24
It is commonly recognized that the Internet routing and addressing
architecture is facing challenges in scalability, multi-homing, and
inter-domain traffic engineering. This document surveys many of the
proposals that were brought forward for discussion in this activity,
as well as some of the subsequent analysis.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-08.txt
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
------ End of Forwarded Message
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
