Subject: Re: [rrg] Summary of architectural solution space

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:59:01 EST

The root cause of the routing table growth problem is that we're using the  
same element (IP address) to express three distinct concepts:  
    1.  the globally unique identity (GUID) needed by the originating client  
system to find the destination server,  
    2.  a component of the session identity (SID) used by the layer 4 and 
higher  protocols to keep track of communications with other hosts, and  
    3.  the node's present location or locations (LOC) within the network  
topography. 
I would put it a little bit differently: The root cause is that, by the  
current routing architecture, just a globally unique identity (GUID)  is used for 
finding both the egress router as well as the destination  server.
 
And also: Point 2, although true, is a different topic, but is orthogonal  to 
this problem.
 
Heiner

In einer eMail vom 21.11.2008 21:43:32 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

On Fri,  Nov 14, 2008 at 4:58 PM, William Herrin <[email-masked]> wrote:
>  http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures.html

Hi  Folks,

The third draft is now available  at
http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures.html .  It adds  a
strategies D, E and F to the solution universe and moves the  major
criticisms of each strategy to a separate subheading so that  the
criticisms don't clutter the description of the approach.

The  second draft is archived  at
http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures2.html

For the  folks who offered suggestions on the earlier drafts: Thank
you. Have I  addressed the issues you brought up? How can I further
improve the  document?

For everyone: I'd like to close this document after this  draft. If you
have any additional comments or criticism, now's the  time.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D.  Herrin ................ [email-masked]  [email-masked]
3005 Crane  Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls  Church, VA  22042-3004
_______________________________________________
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: "Damian Lezama" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:49:15 -0800

Hi,

I don´t see number 2 as completely orthogonal, this is why: since the IP is
used as part of the session identifier it becomes a requirement for it to
don´t change, then when you implement mobility or multihoming you end up
with schemes that impact routing (inject prefixes). This is from a message
from Robin Whittle a couple of days ago that explains it better than I
could:

“If the Internet had been designed so the hosts were somewhat smarter - so
they could operate perfectly well despite their IP address changing at any
time - then we probably wouldn't have a routing scaling problem.  We would
already have something like SHIM6 or ILNP.”

Regards,

Damian

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: November-21-08 2:59 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [rrg] Summary of architectural solution space

I would put it a little bit differently: The root cause is that, by the
current routing architecture, just a globally unique identity (GUID) is used
for finding both the egress router as well as the destination server.

Heiner

Hi Folks,

Regards,
Bill Herrin