> -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Peter Sherbin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 发送时间: 2008年3月10日 14:20 > 收件人: Xu Xiaohu; 'Lixia Zhang'; 'Lars Westberg' > 抄送: [email protected] > 主题: re: [RRG] yetAnotherProposal: AS-number forwarding > > > 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.
I basically agree with your idea of two independent, separately managed pools of id and locator namespace, but I don't like the idea of abandoning the current Internet entirely. The IPv4 address can still be used well as a local locator, not global locator, with an appendix of locator domain (LD) prefix/ID. For example, there are multiple LDs in the world, each LD can use independent IPv4 address space, different LD only exchange LD prefix/ID information with each other, in this way, there are at least three benefits: 1) the address depletion issue is solved; 2) the route stability is improved greatly since the route churn in one LD will not be flooded into other LDs and the LD-prefix can even be aggregated further; 3) the deployment cost is relatively low since only the LD border routers need to be upgraded and the most internal routers within LD can still be IPv4-enabled router. The LD prefix/ID is strictly hierarchical and topology-dependant, or even geographical-location related (see GIRO). This is some idea of HRA. IMO, the strict and full hierarchy in locator namespace is not a good idea as it will limit the flexibility of address assignment and the efficiency of address utilization. Best wishes, Xiaohu XU > > > -----�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
