Subject: [rrg] Fwd: Propose a new proposal

From: Charrie Sun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:50:52 +0800

Hello Lixia and all:

    I'm a student in Tsinghua University, BeiJing and make bold to submit a
proposal for the current scalability problems of the Internet. This is about
a layered mapping system (perhaps we can call it "LMS") to store and lookup
mapping information of edge addresses and core addresses in the separation
base. It is similar to LISP+ALT while differs from it in a number of ways. I
made a elementary summary and introduced the design in another document.

Summary is here: <http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc7cz575_6gwxds4hb>
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AQsJc7A4NTgeZGM3Y3o1NzVfNmd3eGRzNGhi&hl=en
Details:
<http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BwsJc7A4NTgeMGViYmYzZWMtYjZhYS00ZDc2LWE1NWMtMDNkMWI4YTM3ZDI5&hl=en>
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BwsJc7A4NTgeOTYzMjFlOGEtYzA4OC00NTM0LTg5ZjktNmFkYzBhNWJhMWEy&hl=en

My key idea is similar to the LISP+ALT in adopting a hierarchical
mapping system to guarantee scalability. Initially i thought my
proposal is just a specification of ALT, but later i realize there're
some differences. I also made a comment on
today's proposals and my devised two-stage cache on the ITR can work
for many proposals to enhance the performance.
My experiements haven't added to it but prelimenary results are satisfied.
Could you do me a favor to add this proposal to the rrg-wiki Active Proposal
list? You may have a look at it and discard it if it's not novel at all. I
apologize if it wastes rrg's time.

Best wishes,
Sun Letong

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:40:20 EST

Sun Letong,
your proposal shows that the strong belief in mapping doesn't crumble at  
all. Speaking in analogy once more, I have tried - in vain - to convince 
people  that a routable namespace a la Manhattan, New York is better than using 
a  non-routable namespace where you depend on mapping. In New York you can 
progress  towards your destination without asking people at each junction of 
avenue and  street.
 
Besides that the scalability problem could indeed become a non-issue (for  
ever), it strikes me that    the inherent capabilities of  geographical 
coordinates-based routing wrt IP mobility aren't appreciated  neither by Nokia 
nor Ericsson folks.
 
Good luck for your proposal
 
Heiner

 
In einer eMail vom 13.12.2009 02:51:09 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

Hello Lixia and all:

I'm a student in Tsinghua University, BeiJing and make  bold to submit a 
proposal for the current scalability problems of the  Internet. This is about 
a layered mapping system (perhaps we can call it  "LMS") to store and lookup 
mapping information of edge addresses and core  addresses in the separation 
base. It is similar to LISP+ALT while differs from  it in a number of ways. 
I made a elementary summary and introduced the design  in another document. 
 
Summary is here:       
(file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Ccscg%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml) 
_http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AQsJc7A4NTgeZGM3Y3o1NzVfNmd3eGRzNGhi&hl=en_ 
(http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AQsJc7A4NTgeZGM3Y3o1NzVfNmd3eGRzNGhi&hl=en) 
Details:        
(file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Ccscg%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml) 
_http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BwsJc7A4NTgeOTYzMjFlOGEtYzA4OC00NTM0LTg5ZjktNmFkYzBhNWJhMWEy&hl=en_ 
(http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BwsJc7A4NTgeOTYzMjFlOGEtYzA4OC00NTM0LTg5ZjktNmFkYzBhNWJhM
WEy&hl=en) 

My key idea is similar to the LISP+ALT in adopting a hierarchical mapping 
system to guarantee scalability. Initially i thought my proposal is just a 
specification of ALT, but later i realize there're some differences. I also 
made a comment on  today's proposals and my devised two-stage cache on the ITR 
can work for many proposals to enhance the performance.  My experiements 
haven't added to it but prelimenary results are satisfied.  Could you do me a 
favor to add this proposal to the rrg-wiki Active Proposal  list? You may 
have a look at it and discard it if it's not novel at all. I  apologize if it 
wastes rrg's time.  

Best wishes,
Sun Letong

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:59:51 -0500 (EST)

> From: [email-masked]

    > I have tried - in vain - to convince people that a routable namespace a
    > la Manhattan, New York is better than using a non-routable namespace
    > where you depend on mapping.

Perhaps they have not been receptive because they would like _some_ names that
_stay the same when they move to a different location_.

	Noel

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:07:35 EST

> where you depend on mapping.

Perhaps they have not been  receptive because they would like _some_ names 
that
_stay the same when  they move to a different location_.

Noel

Something for sure has to stay the same when you move to a different  
location;  
which is the current IPv4, IPv6, plain HIT (even without IPv6 ?!! ), or  
FQDN (? if this is what Christian Vogt pursues?). Of course they should  stay. 

Hereby local significance for the IPv4-address would be  sufficient (the 
possibility of ambiguity is a) minor, and b) could be resolved  by respective 
standardized procedures).
 
I have always been talking in favor of an ADDITIONAL namespace.  
LISP is also introducing -POTENTIALLY- an additional namespace, which  
however is not routable (only mappable).
Heiner