In einer eMail vom 18.07.2008 03:38:22 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think that geographical-based addressing arrangements, such as those proposed in the recent thread by Heiner Hummel and Iljitsch ban Beijnum) are not worth considering further because: To the extent that routing scalability depends on geographically determined assignment of address space, this is completely incompatible with several fundamental needs of providers and end-user networks: 1 - That organisations who have been assigned address space should be free to use it at various sites, and these organisations are frequently global. 100 % d'accord.What they should not be free to do is to combine the address with a wrong geographical location (btw, I have different solutions in mind which require either more or less accuracy wrt geographical location. (Otherwise, each branch of an organisation - and there could be hundreds at the granularity required by the geographic aggregation system - will want to get a large slab of address space, to cope with the potential for future expansion.) 2 - Since the scalability which geographic aggregation supposedly must depend on routers forwarding packets in part or in whole according to their destination (source too??) address, this is incompatible with the need of organisations to have packets flow along paths which are determined by their business relationships. I support this need of organisations( combine the inter-domain-ly derived and geographically organized topology with the entire intra-domain topology even if the latter one spans the entire globe; enable inter-domain multipath as extensively as demonstrated on my website, of course while taking care that preferences can be made according to business relationships) (It is assumed that the Internet's routing and addressing system should not require any organisations to have a business relationship or handle each other's packets simply because they are in some kind of geographic proximity.) Bill's challenge to Heiner illustrates point 2 nicely: http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg01815.html http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg01829.html 3 - Organisations need to choose who they connect their networks to according to various criteria which are at odds with geographical aggregation, including being free to create links to distant networks. Scenarios include: a - Redundant paths to cope with (geographically) nearby failures and points of congestion. b - Similarly, paths (such as by a fibre link, not tunnelling through the Net) which enable packets to travel whilst meeting security and policy needs. (For instance, for security - not through any given country or company. Also, to meet local Internet censorship, anti-terrorism etc. laws, it may be necessary to make links which avoid certain countries. Encryption is not a proper solution, and security can be damaged just by analysing traffic patterns, even if the contents cannot be deciphered.) c - Efficient traffic handling within global private networks which nonetheless use public address space. All of this can be supported much better than so far. Having the scalability of the Internet's routing system depend on assigning addresses according to geographical location - implicitly with forwarding of packets being dependent upon those addresses - is completely incompatible with the business, policy, security and efficiency requirements of the great majority of providers and end-user networks. Geographical aggregation is the sort of thing which looks good on paper, but will never be acceptable in the real world. This is a clear statement. My answering statement is this: IETF was the first to do route computation but is meanwhile far behind. We could do internet routing as perfectly as Google map can compute a path from New York to L.A. What it takes is a clean vision ( which I think I have), the proper computation technology (which partly exists for 20 years) and a common process to develop a new Topology Aggregating Routing Architecture (TARA). Heiner
