Therefore, we can solve the scalability problem through topological address aggregation -IF- we remove -identity- from protocol layer 3.
Yes and there is a consensus on that, right? Thanks, Peter --- On Fri, 7/4/08, William Herrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: William Herrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [RRG] Long term clean-slate only for the RRG? > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected] > Date: Friday, July 4, 2008, 11:38 AM > 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
