Subject: Re: [rrg] Summary of ILNP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:25:54 EST

In einer eMail vom 22.12.2009 23:47:35 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

PROPOSAL:
Identifier-Locator Network Protocol  (ILNP)

KEY IDEAS:
- Provide crisp separation of Identifiers from  Locators.
- Identifiers name nodes, not interfaces.
- Locators name  subnetworks, rather than interfaces,
so they are equivalent to an IP  routing prefix.
- Identifiers are never used for network-layer routing,  
whilst Locators are never used for Node Identity.
-  Transport-layer sessions (e.g. TCP session state) use only
Identifiers, never Locators, meaning that changes in location
have  no adverse impact on an IP session.

BENEFITS:
- The underlying  protocol mechanisms support fully scalable 
site multi-homing, node  multi-homing, site mobility, 
and node mobility.
- ILNP enables  topological aggregation of location information
while providing  stable and topology-independent identities
for  nodes.

All submitted solutions are dealing with mapping and aggregation in  
traditional way. Here: "ILNP enables topological aggregation of  location 
information." It takes some Hercules'es to merge them. Obviously  the mainstream 
prevails. By all  this en vogue mapping and aggregating I  start disliking the 
name of my own non-conforming TARA model. Effectively it is  not topology 
AGGREGATING, instead it is SKIMMING the topology - the more  remote the 
more,... While I envision confusing discussion about the flurry  of submitted 
mainstream solutions, I may continue to improve/modify my concept  without 
assistance, e.g. by varying the applied scale ratios not only according  to the 
remoteness but as well according to the density of the network (scale  ratio 
1:1 for deserted though remote areas nevertheless..)
 
I think the group will have to do a lot with bundling and reiterating what  
has been submitted. 
 
Keeping up my patience,
Heiner