> The last approach is to introduce an independent host id namespace and uses > a whole GIRO address as locator. > > Which one do you prefer? Or you have any other better idea?
ID/Loc split comes in various forms over and over again with people seem to concentrate on a soft transition of the current system into a scalable one with a minimal disruption. As prudent as it sounds it might not yield anticipated benefits. More desirable approach is to abandon the current Internet entirely and build a new one from two independent, separately managed pools of id: a locator pool and a name pool, where names move freely around a rigid hierarchy of locators. A real time formation of a loc+name pair provides a source/destination lasting from minutes for mobile devices to years for a static gear. Thank you, Peter > > > > -----�ʼ�Ô��----- > > ������: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ���� Lixia Zhang > > ����ʱ��: 2008��3��10�� 12:22 > > �ռ���: Lars Westberg > > ����: [email protected] > > ����: Re: [RRG] yetAnotherProposal: AS-number forwarding > > > > > > On Mar 9, 2008, at 11:40 PM, Lars Westberg wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > I haven't had time to make a draft but I think it make sense for the > > > discussion. However, I don't know if it already have been discussed > > > so.... > > > > > > The proposal are simple: re-use AS-numbers into the forwarding of > > > packets such that prefixes could be aggregated per AS. One simple > > > implemetation is that the packets are tunneled and that the tunnel- > > > address is associated to a AS-number. The AS-numbers can be assigned > > > to the IP-addresses by DNS or by define a small address-prefix to AS- > > > numbers. > > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > > in an ideal world, yes having AS number as part of address used for > > routing has great benefit. see the slide from a talk in 2006 > > (http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~lixia/0612Australia.pdf > > , but ignoring the title), slide 17 & 18 is about this. > > If we had a chance to influence address structure, you'd want to > > include other info in addition to AS (as large ASes span large areas, > > TE would want more info to do better job). > > we have another paper (http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~rveloso/papers/ > > giro.pdf) showing the benefit for including location info (which > > should be a subfield after AS number) > > With support of routing aggregation at any desired level, I can't image that > GIRO alone can do much help in routing scalability issue unless it brings in > some id/locator split idea, like GSE, SIX/ONE or HRA. > > The first approach is to split the GIRO address into two parts: id and > locator. In this approach, IPv4 address part in GIRO address is used as id, > which means there is no need to change the hosts however it doesn't address > the IPv4 address depletion issue. From this perspective, it's much like eFIT > or LISP but it introduces a new locator space. > > The second approach is to make hosts to negotiate the bunch of several GIRO > addresses. > > The last approach is to introduce an independent host id namespace and uses > a whole GIRO address as locator. > > Which one do you prefer? Or you have any other better idea? > > Best wishes, > Xiaohu XU > > > > -- > 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 > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ -- 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
