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

Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com> Wed, 06 May 2009 09:21 UTC

Return-Path: <xuxh@huawei.com>
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 8FD6D3A6868 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2009 02:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.293, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 GUEGV9cvY-tH for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2009 02:21:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD5FB3A6DBD for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 6 May 2009 02:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga01-in [172.24.2.3]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KJ700INGU18C6@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for rrg@irtf.org; Wed, 06 May 2009 17:22:21 +0800 (CST)
Received: from x41208a ([10.111.12.94]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KJ700KR0U18WV@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for rrg@irtf.org; Wed, 06 May 2009 17:22:20 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 17:22:20 +0800
From: Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <4A0142DE.7040007@raszuk.net>
To: robert@raszuk.net, 'Toni Stoev' <irtf@tonistoev.info>
Message-id: <001201c9ce2c$285546d0$5e0c6f0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: AcnOIKWjnO2zeMx3TdC5fRXg2sooQQACVs7g
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
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 09:21:42 -0000

> 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.

In the draft of  "Simple Tunnel Endpoint Signalling in BGP"[
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-xu-tunnel-00.txt ] ,  an IP address specific
extended community is used for carring
the tunnel endpoint (RLOC), which is associated with the NLRI (EID prefix).
In fact, as long as the tunnel endpoint address  is an anycast address
within the originator AS , it is just AS-based inter-domain routing.

Xiaohu

> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> rrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg