Re: [rrg] Inter/intra-domain routing separation

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 06 May 2009 07:58 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44E9C28C2C0 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2009 00:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.691
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.691 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.735, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nuCwhkOmIary for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2009 00:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail37.opentransfer.com (mail37.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B7383A6DBE for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 6 May 2009 00:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 15899 invoked by uid 399); 6 May 2009 07:57:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.53?) (83.24.27.106) by mail37.opentransfer.com with SMTP; 6 May 2009 07:57:20 -0000
Message-ID: <4A0142DE.7040007@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 00:57:18 -0700
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Toni Stoev <irtf@tonistoev.info>
References: <200905051235.41286.irtf@tonistoev.info> <200905060235.52415.irtf@tonistoev.info>
In-Reply-To: <200905060235.52415.irtf@tonistoev.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IRTF RRG <rrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [rrg] Inter/intra-domain routing separation
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 07:58:16 -0000

Hi Toni,

Just FYI I and Enke Chen have discussed in the past an algorithmic way 
to convert 4 byte AS number into the locator. Naturally such locator 
would be an anycast and one could most likely enter given AS via any 
peering ASBR.

The scheme is very simple.

We take 4 byte AS number, assume that we will use 3 last octets while 
first octet would be all zeros and do normal byte by byte bin to dec 
conversion.

The resulting special IPv4 address would be 0.A.B.C.

For IPv6 this is even simpler :).

At that time some folks voiced their opinion that making AS part of a 
locator is a bad thing. Along the same lines they were against tunneling 
to AS/IP address. Perhaps those folks could comment now why this is a 
bad choice ?

I never understood why we can not make first baby step and introduce 
some of the hierarchy just by doing this. We pretty much already know 
today the originator AS from AS_PATH (AS SET is sporadic) as well as 
number of potentially injected new entires equal to number of ASes would 
be noise for current BGP.

Cheers,
R.

> How can locator have default association with its containing autonomous system?
> Easy. Autonomous system number shall be incorporated into locator. Universally recognizable locator shall start with it.
> 
> On Tuesday 5 May 2009 12:35:41 Toni Stoev sent:
>> Intra-domain routing can be considered as a general solution. This general solution is the provision of reachability throughout an autonomous system.
>> Node locators can be considered intra-domain locators. Every locator shall have default association with its containing autonomous system in order to be universally recognizable.
>> Utilizing these approaches inter-domain routing can be separated from intra-domain routing. Inter-domain routing shall be based on autonomous system paths and not on IP addresses and prefixes. Thus inter-domain routing tables will be substantially unloaded and more easily managed.
>> This will provide significant improvement to inter-domain routing scalability.