Subject: Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:24:58 EST

Lixia,
Once more: My geolocation-based TARA concept is FUNDAMENTALLY  different 
from all three proposals you are mentioning (Steve Deering's  Metro-based..., 
Hain-draft, Giro). If I had no better computational  tools at hand than 
Deering, Hain or the UCLA group, I  would either be absolutely  silent          
- or in the ILNP  camp:-)
 
Lixia, I know, you have a lot of ideas, how to make prefix-handling more  
sophisticated.
My point however  is: Get rid of any (Unicast) prefix building. TARA  is 
about providing a well-skimmed topological view of the internet (which  
prevents table size problems as well as update churn). As opposed to all  
submitted proposals, TARA is the only one which can provide a perfect  
visualization: Use Google to search for a route from NY, Time Square, to S.F,  Lambert 
Street - and play with the different zooms !!!
 
Heiner

In einer eMail vom 12.01.2010 19:39:25 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

On Dec  27, 2009, at 7:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Hi,
>
>  On 2009-12-28 14:17, Xu Xiaohu wrote:
> ...
>>> This  argument fails for exactly the same reason that geographically
>>>  based BGP aggregation fails.
>>
>> Brian, who has ever done  it ?
>
> Nobody, as far as I know.
>
>> Why do you  say this and what do you mean by saying this ?
>
> There have been  a lot of geo-based or metro-based proposals over
> the years. Most  recently, draft-hain-ipv6-geo-addr.
> As far as I know, none of them has  ever been deployed, because
> this isn't how Internet economics works.  There is no financial
> incentive to deploy geographically based  exchange points which also
> act as address delegators to customers.  (Note, there is no technical
> argument against it. But nobody knows how  to make money out of it.)

the above comment seems alluding to the long  historical debate in geo- 
based addressing, that the young folks here may  not be totally aware  
(I wish I were one of you people:).  So  here are a few pointers to  
related material.

The concept was  a rather old one, Greg Finn had some related proposal  
back in early  80s (I didn't bother to hunt down the URL but I believe  
a long tech  report is still on the web).

In the early days of IPv6 design, Steve  Deering gave a strong pushing  
in this direction.  The best ref  is probably his plenary talk at July  
1995 IETF  meeting:
"Metro-Based  Addressing",
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/95jul/presentations/allocation/de
ering.slides.ps

This  proposal was considered and debated at the time, but did not fly   
(though effort in that direction continued on, e.g. the draft-hain-  
ipv6-geo-addr mentioned above), mainly due to the reason that has  been  
articulated in this thread of exchanges: the model does not  match the  
ISP economics.

However as it happens to any debate,  opinions often swing further than  
proper. From time to time one  hears the interpretation from that  
debate as "geo info cannot be  used in routing" which is not the case.
What that debate taught us (at  least me) is that, for routing  
decisions, ISP info must take the  high order bit.
However after that high order bit is taken into account,  geo info can  
be very useful to further optimize the routing  decisions.
as a simple evaluation, we used the BGP data from Rotueviews and  RIPE  
for a measurement study, the result is reported in a paper a  few years  
back:
"Geographically Informed Inter-Domain  Routing"
http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~rveloso/papers/giro.pdf
or if you just  want a quick look of the idea, here is the presentation   
slides:
http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~rveloso/papers/07ICNP_giro.ppt

Lixia

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

---

From: "Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:40:28 -0800

Are routers inside a given geo-patch required to interconnect?  That is, will a packet which is delivered to any given router inside a geopatch be guaranteed to be delivered to some other router in the same geopatch?
 
I believed Tony asked this question a few times, I've yet to see a clear answer.
 
-Darrel

________________________________

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
	Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 2:25 PM
	To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
	Subject: Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs

	Lixia,
	Once more: My geolocation-based TARA concept is FUNDAMENTALLY different from all three proposals you are mentioning (Steve Deering's Metro-based..., Hain-draft, Giro). If I had no better computational tools at hand than Deering, Hain or the UCLA group, I would either be absolutely silent          - or in the ILNP camp:-)
	 
	Lixia, I know, you have a lot of ideas, how to make prefix-handling more sophisticated.
	My point however  is: Get rid of any (Unicast) prefix building. TARA is about providing a well-skimmed topological view of the internet (which prevents table size problems as well as update churn). As opposed to all submitted proposals, TARA is the only one which can provide a perfect visualization: Use Google to search for a route from NY, Time Square, to S.F, Lambert Street - and play with the different zooms !!!
	 
	Heiner

	In einer eMail vom 12.01.2010 19:39:25 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [email-masked]:

		

		In the early days of IPv6 design, Steve Deering gave a strong pushing  
		in this direction.  The best ref is probably his plenary talk at July  
		1995 IETF meeting:
		"Metro-Based Addressing",
		ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/95jul/presentations/allocation/deering.slides.ps

		
		Lixia