Subject: Re: [rrg] Economic issues of long-path / stretched routing

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:10:44 -0500 (EST)

Can we _PLEASE_ stop cross-posting things to three lists at once? Thanks.

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 04:11:16 EST

In einer eMail vom 26.01.2009 04:07:23 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

I have a  concern about the economic aspects of stretch, specifically
related to  peering in routing systems where topology follows address
assignment more  closely than today's Internet.

This is one of the main differences with TARA: There a topological  view is 
constructed such that stretch becomes 1 and  not like here  where stretch is 
that what will turn out to be by chance.
 
Heiner

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:23:52 EST

In einer eMail vom 26.01.2009 17:24:51 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

>  Prior arguing with long-path, stretch etc. I have another  
>  informative question (maybe I missed something too during the  
>  discussion): Why LISP 1.5 ? Why not LISP 2 ? or directly:
> Why doesn't  the ITR intercept and enhance the DNS lookup as to also  
> request  the eRLOC address in addition to the dest IP address? It can  
>  also intercept the respective response and store (EID,  eRLOC).

OK. My concern is still how to get the geographical coordinates of the  
egress-(DFZ-)router

1)  Because not all communication uses DNS.
OK. There will be other ways, too, as to get the geo.coordinates

2)  Because DNS queries go out one xTR and replies can come in through   
another xTR.
This shouldn't bother neither solution, particularly not if the mentioned  
intercepting router is the ingress router nor in the ideal case when even the  
source host learns to handle  the returned geo.coordinates (e.g. by some  small 
Microsoft update).

3)  Because you don't want a architectural circular dependency between   
directory and routing.
OK. Wouldn't affect my solution.

Do  you want more reasons?
Please. I have always appreciated your answering of my  questions.
BTW, I am grateful for the default mapper mechanism, which helps me to  solve 
my incremental deployment issue.
Thank you so much.
 
Heiner

Dino