Subject: Re: [rrg] Constraints due to the need for widespread voluntary adoption

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 04:42:37 EST

In einer eMail vom 01.12.2009 01:54:40 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

wrote  about this in April and updated the text after some helpful
and generally  positive feedback:

http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/RRG-2009/constraints/

Does anyone  agree with some or all of this?

Robin,
I agree with all your "must be's" (btw you also enlists some  
non-requirement statements).
 
But why do you want to postpone considering MIP ?
 
Your (and other's) future routing architecture depends heavily on the  
continued existence of non-IP / telephone network architecture. You mention  
millions (billions ?) of mobile handsets and are afraid of their prefixes.
All I hear is mapping, mapping, mapping: enum-mapping,  RLOC-mapping...
 
Maybe I should join the choir and speak of location-mapping, i.e. of a  
location-namespace which is a seperate and new namespace. Then all other  
addresses, PI and PA, IPv4 and IPv6, E.164 and HITs, etc. could be serviced  
equally well.
 
Heiner

---

From: Patrick Frejborg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 12:54:20 +0200

> All I hear is mapping, mapping, mapping: enum-mapping, RLOC-mapping...
Heiner,

I have taken another approach, going after the flat address structure
and introducing a hierarchy level on top of the old one. No mapping is
needed.
And I share your concern about having a mapping database for routing
information - guess it would be the main target in a cyberwar
situation, either by hacking it or change the legislation in a wartime
situation to take control of the database (?) - the question is, is it
possible for one nation to take down another nation's Internet
infrastructure by getting access to the mapping database??
Note! This is an open question since I haven't studied the mapping
solutions in detail

-- patte

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:04:58 +1100

Hello Heiner,

> But why do you want to postpone considering MIP ?

I don't - its just that the voluntary adoption question only applies
to fixed networks which can, in principle, get multihoming,
portability and TE in an unscalable fashion by getting PI space and
advertising it in the DFZ.  We need firstly to have most of those
networks voluntarily choose the scalable solution and secondly make
the scalable solution amenable to a much larger number of generally
smaller networks which don't have the resources to use the current
BGP system, even if there was no scaling problem.

I do have a mobility approach which is based on a core-edge
separation scheme such as LISP, APT or Ivip.  It doesn't involve any
new namespaces or new types of addresses.  There's no way cell-phone
users would have the resources to non-scalably achieve mobility,
using their own PI prefix, so the voluntary adoption question doesn't
arise for mobile use of the core-edge separation scheme.

I have never been able to understand what you keep mentioning about
geographic mapping, or "location-namespace" etc.  Can you give a
practical explanation of how it would work, with a different thread
subject than this one?

How would your system enable non-upgraded hosts or upgraded hosts in
non-upgraded networks communicate with the devices using your system?
 This is my question 3:

How would traffic using your system traverse the DFZ?  This is my
question 6.

  - Robin