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

Toni Stoev <irtf@tonistoev.info> Thu, 07 May 2009 02:38 UTC

Return-Path: <irtf@tonistoev.info>
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 5FA393A6F51 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2009 19:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.04
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.04 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.559, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 qBdMJL2cKtcx for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2009 19:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chi.r1servers.com (chi.r1servers.com [82.119.92.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 891673A6F59 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 6 May 2009 19:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 85-91-132-61.spectrumnet.bg ([85.91.132.61] helo=laptop.local) by chi.r1servers.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <irtf@tonistoev.info>) id 1M1tWp-0003AU-M6 for rrg@irtf.org; Thu, 07 May 2009 05:40:07 +0300
From: Toni Stoev <irtf@tonistoev.info>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 05:40:05 +0300
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9
References: <200905051235.41286.irtf@tonistoev.info> <200905060235.52415.irtf@tonistoev.info>
In-Reply-To: <200905060235.52415.irtf@tonistoev.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
To: IRTF RRG <rrg@irtf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200905070540.06216.irtf@tonistoev.info>
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - chi.r1servers.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - irtf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - tonistoev.info
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
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: Thu, 07 May 2009 02:38:47 -0000

Robert, Xiaohu, thanks for commenting.

To be clear, I use the term "autonomous system" in the sense of "routing domain", considering both interchangeable.

On Wednesday 6 May 2009 02:35:52 Toni Stoev sent:
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> rrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
>