Subject: [rrg] Analysis of name-based sockets

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 02:11:58 -0500

Dear all -

Below please find an analysis of name-based sockets as an Internet  
routing scalability solution:

http://christianvogt.mailup.net/pub/vogt-2009-name-based-sockets-analysis.txt

- Christian

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:46:37 -0800

> http://christianvogt.mailup.net/pub/vogt-2009-name-based-sockets-analysis.txt

Hi Christian,

thanks for writing this up. I have two comments here, for two  
different (but related) issues.

1/ before this msg I only saw critique submission for one proposal,  
though Robin is planning to write a few more in coming days.
My question is whether we let anyone, including the authors, to submit  
critique for each proposal.
My own opinion (hat off): the most important thing is to get a  
critique for each proposal, not who writes it, as long as it is a  
critique and not something else.

2/ I read the text from the above pointer, it does not read like a  
critique, but an argument for why one would need name-based sockets.   
As every coin has 2 sides, so does name-based sockets. What are the  
issues?
Christian, I wonder if you would consider write a real critique for  
name-based sockets.

Lixia

---

From: "Robin Whittle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:29:28 +1100 (EST)

I plan to write a critique of Chrisitan's Name Based Sockets
proposal.   I haven't read much of it yet, but my impression is
that it is a good approach, in many ways, if one accepts that
major changes to the stack, API and all applications are both
possible and desirable and if one accepts that the network should
be simple and the hosts should do more routing and addressing work
than they do today.

I don't agree with these widely held points of view - because I
think the outcomes from the best core-edge separation schemes will
be better, with hosts not being required to do more than they do
today.

Whether or not Name Based Sockets is a core-edge elimination
scheme or not, I am not sure.  I will write a critique of it and
see whether my concerns about extra host work and delays apply to
it.

I will do this ASAP after writing about LISP and TIDR and after
responding on-list to a detailed set of comments I have just
received on the new Ivip-arch ID.  I will post it to the list so
other people can comment on it and write their own critiques.  I
could coordinate final text for the critique of these three
proposals, but I think who coordinates the text should be decided
by whoever wants to contribute to such critiques.

  - Robin

---

From: Javier Ubillos <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:00:28 +0100

On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:29 +1100, Robin Whittle wrote:
> proposal.

Here's my 300+ word draft to a critique of the Name Based sockets.
I don't mind coordinating additions/changes to the critique, I'm
assuming that monday 18th is the deadline for critiques.

With or without feedback, I do plan to extend this critique.

// Javier

---

From: Javier Ubillos <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:13:31 +0100

On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:29 +1100, Robin Whittle wrote:
> scheme or not, I am not sure.
I'd confidently say that it is _not_ a core-edge elimination scheme.
Name-based sockets contribution is that it erases the hosts dependency
(or preference) on a given IP-address (locator). On it's own side and on
the remote hosts side.
By providing the end-hosts with the name abstraction (and locator
agnosticism), a core-edge elimination scheme might be easier to
implement or even unnecessary if the need for PI addresses could be
obsoleted completely (which I admit might be an utopian scenario ;)  )

> I will write a critique of it and
I don't think there will be any delays, all extra information is
appended to the packets "in-band". There is no 'first packet delay' due
to any pre-negotiations, the name exchange happens simultaneously, and
the individual connections are not dependent on this information being
fully negotiated before data can be exchanged. 

// Javier Ubillos

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:33:02 +1100

Hi Javier,

Thanks for commenting on my possibly mistaken first impressions of
Name Based Sockets:

http://christianvogt.mailup.net/pub/vogt-2009-name-based-sockets.pdf
http://christianvogt.mailup.net/pub/vogt-2009-name-based-sockets-analysis.txt

I will read the proposal properly as soon as I can, and will respond
to your critique of my initial impressions ASAP.  First I need to do
some Ivip things and work on critiques of LISP and TIDR.

I would be happy for you to coordinate the final text of the critique
of Name Based Sockets.

  - Robin