Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs

Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com> Sat, 26 December 2009 01:20 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 DD5933A6811 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:20:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.002
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.602, BAYES_40=-0.185, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45]
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 26gRUXHATngs for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:20:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0725E3A659B for <rrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:20:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KV800M3PJQBNP@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for rrg@irtf.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:20:35 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KV80096DJQB0D@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for rrg@irtf.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:20:35 +0800 (CST)
Received: from HUAWEIE75F8F11 ([10.111.12.195]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KV800LL1JQASL@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for rrg@irtf.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:20:35 +0800 (CST)
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:20:35 +0800
From: Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <4B351345.7080908@gmail.com>
To: 'Brian E Carpenter' <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 'wei zhang' <zhangwei734@gmail.com>
Message-id: <000901ca85c9$a077b1c0$c30c6f0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-index: AcqFmQfAOc9SmKGZR46XZ4d1KL5CZQALrG0g
Cc: rrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs
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: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 01:20:56 -0000

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: rrg-bounces@irtf.org [mailto:rrg-bounces@irtf.org] 代表 Brian E
> Carpenter
> 发送时间: 2009年12月26日 3:32
> 收件人: wei zhang
> 抄送: rrg@irtf.org
> 主题: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs
> 
> On 2009-12-26 05:52, wei zhang wrote:
> ...
> > A good answer is that the EID should also be aggregateable,
> 
> I may be missing what you mean, because it seems to me that
> any set of bit strings (even of variable length) is aggregatable
> to an arbitrary extent. Just build a binary tree and chop it
> off at whatever level you want (/N if you want 2^N aggregates).

Agree. Even the EID is a flat label, the corresponding ID->Locator mapping
system could scale well by using some methods, e.g., DHT.

IMO, a major reason that the EID should be hierarchical is as follows: 

The resolution infrastructure for flat names has no "pay-for-your-own”
model, as the flat names are stored at essentially random nodes. In
contrast, the resolution infrastructure for the hierarchical host
identifiers has reasonable business models and clear trust boundaries. Since
the hierarchical host identifiers have clear organization affiliation, the
identifier resources and the corresponding mappings can be managed by
different bodies with clear administrative boundaries.

Xiaohu

> (The equivalent has to be true for namespaces using n-ary instead of
> binary symbols.)
> 
>     Brian
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> rrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg