Subject: Re: [rrg] NANOG44 session on current IP address challenges

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 04:12:02 EDT

Interesting: "we must not depend on DNS to bootstrap the core operation of  
the system".
 
(I recommend reading Douglas R. Hofstadter's "Goedel, Escher, Bach - an  
eternal braid" and what he writes about viewing an information system from  inside 
and from OUTSIDE.)
 
All my emails try to tell that the scalability problem is self-made and  that 
there is no need to keep up with it.
I cannot offer a solution which restricts excessiveness, only which does  
away with the whole problem.
 
Admitted, my TARA-solution depends on DNS extensions according to  
experimental RFC 1712.
But sure, geographical coordinates are provided by GPS.   By DNS  would be an 
artificial indirection:
At first DNS needs to get the (egress) router's geographical  coordinates and 
assign them to each (destination) IP address so that it can  be looked up 
later.
However, imagine:
The destination is given by the geographical coordinates of the egress  
router plus the user's name !
A Lookup-packet is sent to this egress router and returned is a local  user's 
(address-) number! 
 
Thereafter, the IP flow is forwarded based on a derived  "geo-location-id" 
while also containing the destination's  (address-)number.
 
Benefit: The core operation does not depend on DNS either.
 
Note: This summer I wanted to go for vacation to some place in Italy and  
upon asking how to get there they just sent me their geographical coordinates.  
Shouldn't the internet catch up with ?
 
Heiner

 
In einer eMail vom 20.10.2008 23:56:31 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

There  was a joint NANOG/ARIN session last week on
"Moderated Panel:  What Would Jon have Done About the Addressing
Challenges  Currently Facing Us?"

this was the last session on NANOG-44  agenda
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog44/agenda.php
All talk slides are  online, and I thought they might be interesting to  
at least some RRG  people
My talk is  at
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog44/presentations/Wednesday/Zhang_Wed_N44.pd
f

FYI,
Lixia
_______________________________________________
rrg  mailing  list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:01:07 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>

    >>> I would like to add another solution, map-and-encap (without
    >>> renumber), which seems holding best promise to me.

Concur...

    >> How does that reduce the table size?

    > that will take a slide deck to explain.

To give us an idea what you're alluding to (and leaving aside all the
details), does it involve having parts of the network which do not contain
routes/routing-entries for the 'mapped' (aka EID) addresses?

	Noel