Re: SIP Addressing Limitations

[William Allen Simpson <[e-mail]>]

> Now, maybe this is a temporary aberation and as soon as parts of
> the far east gets its infrastructure together this topology will
> be deemed silly, but I think in general it is dangerous to assume
> that the topology will always follow geographical boundaries.....
>
Yes, which is why the constraint is that the system will demonstrably
continue to operate with 10 times the partitioning of the best case
model, using current technology.

BTW, it is currently possibly to get over a dozen dedicated 56K links
from Michigan to California for the price that Ameritech wants for one
pair of local residential intra-LATA ISDN 2B+D operated 24 hours a day.
I have to assume that this also is a "temporary aberation [sic]".


> hosts), the SIP address could handle 10^12 hosts if it acheived
> about 2% efficiency per level of hierarchy.  By 2% efficiency
> I mean that 2% of the possible address assignments (per level)
> are actually assigned.
>
Then you will be glad to have read:

      While at first glance this may appear to be 89% efficiency in
      allocation, it is noted below that the two largest countries are
      assigned only half their proper allocation.  The actual efficiency
      is closer to 60%, ....

Leaves lots of room for error at the lower levels.


> That's a lot of time, and already we have
> counter-examples to your strategy.

So far I haven't seen any.  You have shown that there are 2 sites (not
providers) that are in adjacent Asian countries (not the same country)
that are connected to 2 U.S. nation-wide providers, which communicate
through a 3rd U.S. nation-wide provider on the East coast.

But even West coast U.S. customers of those providers communicate on the
East coast.  So, we are merely giving the Asians that same poor
connectivity we have in the U.S. already.

To quote (again):

      There are approximately 227 assigned countries and territories.
      This table size is 2 orders of magnitude smaller than currently
      handled by IP4 world-wide.

      An effective aggregation scheme would result from interconnection
      of all of the networks within each country.  This may be likely in
      the long term (by fiat if not for practical reasons), but is not
      required for efficient operation of this plan.  Splitting each
      country into 10 disconnected portions would still be an order of
      magnitude smaller than currently handled by IP4 world-wide.

As a counter-example, you would have to show more than 100 disconnected
networks for *every* country in the world which do not communicate
*within* their local country.  Even so, that efficiency would still be
better than we are currently routing today for the U.S.


> To be fair, I think that the 64-bit SIP address will work, but
> it will require constant management.

The idea behind country-based assignment is that it will take *NO*
external management.  Each country can manage their own affairs and the
effects will be negligable outside the country.  If they do the right
things (interconnect with adjacent countries), it can get better.  But
it won't get worse.


Paul, in my view it's time for you to put up or shut up.  Show me this
fine allocation plan of yours with:

 - a guaranteed set of constraints.
 - a provable maximal routing table size.
 - aggregates so that an international amateur radio operator sees a
   very small table (< 256 entries, preferably < 10).
 - scales on an inter-planetary basis.

And is:

 - easy to administer.
 - amenable of politics.
 - supports metro, provider, and end-point allocation simultanously.
 - has a firm rationale for each division.
 - supports efficient distributed access.
 - aggregates better as the network grows.

Otherwise, give me *contructive* criticism for my plan.

[e-mail]