Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs

[Xu Xiaohu <[e-mail]>]

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 发送时间: 2009年12月28日 11:43
> 收件人: Xu Xiaohu
> 抄送: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 主题: Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs
> 
> 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.)
> 
> By the way, I don't consider HRA locators to be geo-based. They
> are fundmentally PA locators. The geographic part is secondary.
> In RANGI, you don't mention any geo component of the locators.

Yes, your observation is correct. No matter in the HRA or in its successor
RANGI, The locators are fundmentally PA locators. The initial intention of
embedding some geographical info into HRA locators was to realize
location-awareness based services, e.g., achieving P2P traffic localization
by allowing hosts to obtain information from the nearest ones of all
available peers.

> But this was all a side comment. What I meant is that the problem
> of mapping PI identifiers to PA locators is just the same as
> mapping geo addresses to topological addresses. I don't see any
> evidence that the mapping can be significantly more compact
> than if the identifiers are assigned randomly. Wei Zhang seemed
> to argue that by some special assignment scheme for identfiers,
> we can get a significantly smaller map. I would like to see
> the data supporting that.
> 
> > It must be something quite different from what I understand.
> >
> > This thread "Aggregatable EIDs" is concerned about aggregating EIDs and
the
> problems with mapping the prefixes to RLOCs. This objective wouldn't even
exist
> if both EID and RLOC-ID are  asigned a "third" information (I proposed it
not
> long ago) which itself is universally routable and which wouldn't need any
> authoritative provisioner either. No need for aggregating any two EIDs! No
need
> for mapping any EID-IP-address to any RLOC-IP-address provided that they
share
> a common attribute that is derived from geographical coordinates.
> 
> My point is that aggregation of EIDs is basically artificial.
> 
> >
> > By sticking to  non-routable identifiers none of the 14 solutions
becomes
> any better than LISP.
> 
> At some level they are probably all isomorphic, yes. Except maybe ILNP.
> 
> > Note, not only IPv4 / IPv6 addresses are non-routable, AS numbers aren't
> either.
> 
> But there are about 10 times fewer active AS numbers than there are active
> prefixes. So flat-routing on AS numbers would gain one order of magnitude
> immediately.
> 
> > With 99 % of the hosts being mobile, wouldn't it be appropriate to have
mainly
> provider-independent FQDNs
> 
> Well, yes, which is why Christian Vogt's proposal for name-based
> sockets is very interesting. But actually it only hides the problem
> in the socket layer; the problem doesn't go away.
> 
> >
> > and a DNS that is fairly up-to-date with the correlation between a
respective
> HIT and the current location, i.e. completely independent of the current
AS?
> 
> If the locator is PA, sure. But that's the problem - making the locator
PA.
> 
> >
> > Since the HIT is already a provider-independent host identifier, why
should
> each host be assigned with a FQDN as another provider-independent ID?
Taken
> the current cell-phone mobile network as an example, does every cell-phone
need
> a FQDN-like global name besides the cell-phone number itself?
> 
> Well, until people drop the stupidity of reverse DNS lookup as a "security
> check"
> it's very hard to drop this. Of course it's bogus. (Do you really care
> that my FQDN right now is 121.98.142-??.bitstream.orcon.net.nz?)

Your FQDN example seems much similar to the RANGI host identifier, the
leftmost part of which is administrative domain (AD) ID, while the remaining
part is a hash value of the public key and the AD ID. The AD ID is
delegation-oriented aggregatable. The major difference is that the AD ID
itself is in fixed length, rather than variable length.

Xiaohu