On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Peter Sherbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -MY- point was that Line 1 need not be there at all. It is an >> identifier which serves no role in the routing. > > It sure does as long as there are more than one person living at the > same address. The selection does not stop until it reached > the "end". This is why defining the end point is critical. It will help > with setting all of the identifier properties.
Not so! Once the letter has reached the address, folks at the address are allowed to open the letter and make further decisions based on what's inside, handing it to a human being, the trash can or even back to the post office with a new address. On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is not clear to me how any of this discussion helps routing research for > the Internet. Follow the logic chain: A. -IF- topological address aggregation was practical, the route scalability problem could be readily solved by aggregating routes based on the address aggregation. B. Topological address aggregation would be practical -IF- any endpoint's layer 3 address could be routinely and recursively reassigned by the "upstream" routers through an address assignment protocol without disrupting layer 4 AND the node could sensibly handle multiple defaults with multiple source addresses via a routing policy protocol. C. An ephemeral address which changes without disturbing layer 4 would be possible -IF- the node identity value used by layers 4 and above WAS NOT derived from the layer 3 address. In other words, make layer 4 treat the layer 3 address the way layer 3 treats the layer 2 address. Therefore, we can solve the scalability problem through topological address aggregation -IF- we remove -identity- from protocol layer 3. So, the relevance of the discussion about the name (line 1) in a postal address is this: The name (identity) obviously isn't needed for the post office to successfully route the letter. Routing still works if your name isn't present on the envelope. If the same is true of network packets in a hypothetical architecture (and it should be) then we can solve the layer 3 routing problem by changing how the layer 4 protocols determine a node's identity. After all, I'm not "3005 Crane Drive," I'm "William Herrin." And the post office can deliver mail to "3005 Crane Drive" without knowing whether it's intended for "William Herrin." Fix how layer 4 handles host identity and the layer-3 routing system no longer needs to manage a large database. Of course, layer 4 now needs to manage a large map from identities to their current locations, but we've already seen that well handled by (insert drum roll) DNS. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- 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
