2010.9.24 пет 10:15:47 Toni Stoev: > 2010.9.21 вт 12:52:29 Toni Stoev: > > ILNP: The Routing RG has had remarkably little consensus on anything, so > > virtually all Routing RG outputs are considered controversial. > > > > I was surprised to know that Robin is against location/identity separation. > > Are you not, Robin? > > > > Distinction between a node's identity and topological location is natural, > > because the same node can be attached to the general network at different > > points. So, to name the node independently of its point of attachment, we > > need an identifier assigned to the node. And we also need a locator to > > represent the node's topological position. > > > > Do you consent? > > 2010.9.21 вт 17:37:22 Robin Whittle: > > Short version: Why I think CEE (Locator / Identifier Separation) > > is inferior in general to CES - and in particular > > why CEE cannot provide mobility in an acceptable > > manner, while CES with TTR Mobility can. > > > > CES continues the current pattern of the routing > > system providing significant services to the hosts. > > > > CEE requires the routing system to do less work, > > and hosts to do more, including sending and > > receiving more packets, holding more state, > > running more complex software - and suffering > > more delays and sensitivity to packet loss. > > This is unacceptable in general, and is > > particularly unacceptable for battery powered > > hosts hanging on via slow and potentially > > unreliable 3G etc. radio links. > > OK. Half of us (who expressed opinion) are for, the other half are against > location/identity separation. > > Now node reference. > Endpoints of data communication in the general network are computers, i.e., > nodes. Naming nodes is especially appropriate for path selection among nodes. > It is the node that communicates with another node, so their > location/identity needs to be expressed to the routing system. > In today's Internet naming endpoints is actually of their interfaces to > links. This leads to weird situations where communication with a > correspondent at a remote part of the 'Net is conducted on a per interface > basis; and a change in the local interfaces of communication (i.e., links of > attachment) means to the remote party a connection with different entity. > (identity again) > In path selection, naming interfaces designates the norm that a route in one > direction is totally different from the same route in the reverse direction, > instead of being seen as a reverse path. > > So, do you consent that nodes (instead of interfaces) have to be referenced > with locators(addresses)/identifiers?
This time all of us (who expressed opinion) are for node reference (instead of interface's). So, the easy part passed. Now the big mess and its even bigger clearance. Reiterating. Inter/Intra Distinction/Separation Inter-domain path selection and intra-domain next-hop resolution are unnecessarily entangled with the use of intra-domain prefixes in inter-domain path selection. So the inter-domain routing system has been filled up with routing domains' inner intelligence that is spilling all over. But there are AS paths. They are the necessary and sufficient pointers for conducting inter-domain path selection; provided that routing domains start to convey inter-domain traffic as whole entities, acting similarly to nodes in intra-domain hop-by-hop forwarding. Thus, inter-domain path selection will be based on AS numbers (only) and intra-domain next-hop resolution – on locators (currently IP addresses). Do you agree that inter-domain and intra-domain routing have to be separated? _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
