Hi, I recently read a paper named GIRO (Geographically Informed Inter-Domain Routing) which is co-authored by Lixia Zhang. GIRO brings us some benefits including shortest path based on geographic distances, route aggregation at various level: ASN, geolocation and SID.
The LD ID (Locator Domain ID) in HRA (http://www.huawei.com/file/download.do?f=3073) can be a hierarchical label which consists of AS number, geographical location info (e.g. country number, region number, city number). So many benefits from GIRO can be inherited naturally into HRA. Besides, in order to ease the implemental deployment, HRA adopts tunnel between LDBR to forward packets across LD, it means internal router within LD doesn't need to be upgraded to recognize this new globally unique locator (LD ID+IPv4/v6 address). Within HRA, only hosts and LDBRs (LD Border Router) need to be upgraded. Currently many people have expressed their support of host stack modification approach to id/loc split. Host software upgrade is not as difficult or terrible as somebody believed. So should we revaluate the pros and cons of all the proposals with a fresh view? Best regards, Xiaohu Xu ============================================================== As stated in that paper, "A GIRO address has two distinct components: external and internal. The external component consists of (1) its network ID in the form of AS number (ASN), (2) its geographical location (geolocation), and (3) its traffic slice ID (SID). The external component is used for inter-domain routing. Its role is the same as that of IP prefixes in BGP, and we call the external part (i.e. ASN.geolocation.SID) a GIRO prefix (G-prefix). The internal component consists of the subnet and host part, similar to that in the current IP address." -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
