In einer eMail vom 18.07.2010 09:37:11 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt [email protected]:
On Saturday 17 July 2010 at 20:36:16 [email protected] sent: > Toni, > > > I think you are pursuing the wrong objective (which is global uniqueness of the identifier). Does anyone else think global/universal uniqueness of the identifier is the wrong objective? --------------------- HH: There are a few things to be added: During the incremental deployment phase TARA depents on the current globally unique IPv4 addresses !!! Not anymore after it were fully deployed. Hence there is some time pressure (but not from the alternatives like LISP or ILNP). ------------------------------ > > There are millions of people with the surname Li and yet they aren't a serious problem for the postal services. For each letter sent to Li at a given postal address the sender already knows/expects the right Li is at that address. > IMHO ( I have expressed it many times and did also show how to get it done ) the Internet routing should also become as smart so that local uniqueness of any identifier will do. So, Heiner, the Internet routing system with its smartness would provide node identity for free roaming and session preservation? ------------------- HH: First: provide forwarding to the right TARA-egress-router just based on the TARA-locator i.e. without checking the additional identifier (which would be the IPv4 address e.g.) If the TARA-egress router had become another one due to roaming, though within the same geopatch, a geopatch-local broadcast search may find him (btw without any home agent's help). -------------------- In my opinion the Internet has been successful so far because of IP addressing and the DNS, which are systems that give general uniqueness to nodes/interfaces. And I think these uniqueness systems give consistency to the sum of networks we have. ------------------------- HH: Sure. There has to be at least ONE sort of uniqueness. But given that I can add/utilize some uniqueness system like the geographical coordinates, then local uniqueness will do after I have reached the egress router of the added uniqueness system. ----------------------- > > Remember MADCAP. It was a similar mad idea (RFC2730). It tried to manage a clash-free multicast address assignment - globally. It didn't fly at all. I may find the time to read RFC 2730. But would you summarize it here with regard to local/universal uniqeness of identifiers? ------------------------- HH: Not worth to look for it. It's about a globally distributed system of servers which ought to hand out multicast addresses for temporary use. Single-source multicast (ss-pim) replaced that mad idea. I wonder why nobody complains about the hassle of administering Unicast prefixes. ---------------------------
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
