Re: [rrg] TARA and voluntary adoption

[Robin Whittle <[e-mail]>]

Short version:  Nothing Heiner has written makes me think TARA
                is complete, is suitable for scalable routing or
                could be adopted widely on a voluntary basis.


Hello Heiner,

You wrote:

> Below I have inserted the text of a preceding email you might have read
> already.

OK, you wrote this a day or two ago:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05456.html

This involves a new addressing scheme and protocols which are not
suitable for voluntary adoption.  There are people on this list who
are interested in discussing such things, but I only discuss those
which could be voluntarily adopted - which means no new addressing
systems or protocols, at least as far as hosts are concerned.

However, I don't see how geographic addressing helps with anything,
how it would work with physically mobile systems, or how you cope
with multiple sites in multi-storey buildings sharing the same
latitude and longitude.


> The hereby proposed location identifiers (or tokens, or names, or
> attributes) are aggregatable like no other scheme and can indeed be used
> to develop a routing architecture which aggregates the internet topology
> such that it contains parts thereof the more reduced (sparsed) the more 
> remote they are.

I don't see how these can be aggregated.  Geographic location has
little or nothing to do with network topology.


> I haven't received any on-list response so far. 

Probably because your proposal is regarded as extremely incomplete
and/or unsuited to the scalable routing problem.

> Since Bill Herrin
> brought up the commercial relation argument people are convinced that
> restrictions due to business relations of the ISPs can only be
> communicated implicitly (i.e. by distance vector technique) and cannot
> be communicated explicitly. Because I think that can be done for sure, I
> think that can be considered later, i.e. is not a non-starter argument
> at all. 
>
> Instead, routing technology should be addressed in the first place.E.g.
> Hierarchical routing.
> 
> I could imagine that the term hierarchical routing excites every one.
> But I needs to be done properly.
> 
> I have my doubts that both hierarchical routing as well as geo-location
> based routing have ever been discussed adequately. Stretch is not the
> only bad aspect of all the "well-known" and in my opinion wrong
> hierarchical models. I also presented the Istanbul-argument which shows
> how important a "SLIDING hierarchy" is.
> 
> Allegeably "we are thru the geo-location options". Has there anyone ever
> discussed the difference between a big sized flat network and a big
> sized network which shapes a globe ?

None of this makes me think your proposal is complete, suitable for
scalable routing or could be adopted widely on a voluntary basis.

  - Robin