David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|Again, in the vein of willing suspension of disbelief...
|
|On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 04:55 PM, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|> Using name strings may be no more difficult with respect to the
|> implementation
|> of the name service, but it leverages far less existing code than
|> would a fixed-
|> length binary identifier.
|
|Right.
|
|> Consider the advantages of using an identifier that
|> has exactly the same format as what we currently call an address,
|> i.e., 128
|> bits.
|
|Or, better yet, 64 bits. Say, the lower 64 bits of a 128 bit value?.
Sure, this has been proposed before, but I think the main complaint was
that 64 bits is no longer enough for the wasteful allocation policies we
have adopted. I used 128 bits in my original proposal just to avoid the
objection that we would be giving anything up in that respect.
|> With translation happening near the bottom of the IP layer, no changes
|> would be necessary in tcp or in applications.
|
|No translation would be necessary.
You have to translate somewhere, if not at the bottom of the host's stack
then at what you are calling edge routers.
|> With a little care, multi-homing could be supported.
|
|Multi-homing would be trivial.
Some care would be required to get failover to work. This isn't completely
trivial, but it need not be a big deal.
|The lower 64 bits of the destination would be put into an
|in-addr.arpa-like tree,
I like my specialized mapping service, but sure...
|Renumbering thereby becomes merely an exercise in modifying the end
|point 64 bit in-addr.arpa-like entry and waiting for the cache entry to
|time out.
I proposed to short-circuit the timeout by having nodes try where possible
to give a hint to known peers that a renumbering event had occurred. This
can also be handled either at the end points or at the edge routers.
There is an infinite variety of these mapping schemes, most any one of which
would solve the portable identifier problem. Unfortunately, proposing one
always provokes someone to claim that: (a) solving the portable identifier
problem is equivalent to solving the non-aggregated routing problem and (b)
we do not know how to solve the non-aggregated routing problem therefore (c)
the portable identifier problem cannot be solved so easily. Of course (a) is
likely true in the sense that the solutions are isomorphic in some abstract way.
We are really talking about source routing with an extra level of indirection
to make the route look more like an address. That's not entirely unreasonable
given that the locator addresses we use in a hierarchical allocation system are
really close to being routes.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
