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

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:48:30 -0500 (EST)

> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>

    > the current routing table is 8 x the number of ASes and BGP not only
    > fails to contain updates to a limited part of the network, it actually
    > amplifies them as they circle the globe. Those issues are separate from
    > an id/loc overload.

I can't say for sure about the first, because I don't know the exact cause(s)
of that, but as to the second, I think your conclusion is entirely
unwarranted.

To fix the 'contain updates to a limited part of the network' issue, an
topologically organized allocation of 'routing-names' (either hierarchical, or
landmark routing, or _something_ like that, which allows limiting the scope of
information about a given destination). Yes, it's true that the routing system
_at the moment_ is incapable of using any such well-organized routing-names -
but that doesn't obviate the *requirement* for them, if one _does_ want to
limit the scope of updates.

And here we are precisely back to the need for routing-names which aren't
permanent, _uncorrelated to location_ - because it's evident that the users
*do* need permanent names for hosts, so there's a direct conflict between what
users want (permanent names) and what routing needs (names which change when
location changes), and there is no way to square that circle with a single
namespace.

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

---

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:41:07 -0800

|To fix the 'contain updates to a limited part of the network' issue, an
|topologically organized allocation of 'routing-names' (either 
|hierarchical, or
|landmark routing, or _something_ like that, which allows 
|limiting the scope of
|information about a given destination). Yes, it's true that 
|the routing system
|_at the moment_ is incapable of using any such well-organized 
|routing-names -
|but that doesn't obviate the *requirement* for them, if one 
|_does_ want to
|limit the scope of updates.

While we're here, the lack of a global addressing scheme that would generate
abstractions of routing names is a topic that is very much on-topic for us.
That falls under the portion of the charter on 'addressing architectures'.

Tony

---

From: Tom Vest <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:29:10 -0500

Coincidentally, 8:1 is just about the same (max) ratio of loans to  
reserves that most chartered/regulated banks are permitted to  
maintain, to keep them from contributing too much to monetary  
inflation...

And on that note, something entirely different for those needing a  
diversion for the weekend:

http://www.eyeconomics.com/backstage/Presentations/Pages/Bankers_for_BGP_v1.2.html

A shortish explanatory memo:

http://www.eyeconomics.com/backstage/NetStagflationPaper.html

and some illustrative links:

http://www.eyeconomics.com/backstage/Isomorphism.html

http://www.eyeconomics.com/backstage/Isomorphism_M.html

http://www.eyeconomics.com/backstage/Isomorphism_I.html

http://www.eyeconomics.com/backstage/Isomorphism_G.html

Strange but true!

Comments, questions, suggestions, criticisms greatly appreciated...

Tom Vest