IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rrg] Constraints due to the need for widespread voluntary adoption

Patrick Frejborg <pfrejborg@gmail.com> Tue, 01 December 2009 10:54 UTC

Return-Path: <pfrejborg@gmail.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 6337D3A6B23 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 02:54:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 Mymd6jcXkgy5 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 02:54:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-f195.google.com (mail-yw0-f195.google.com [209.85.211.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9446F3A6A30 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 02:54:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ywh33 with SMTP id 33so4211745ywh.23 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:54:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=SlYsU+uGHgPTCIzyXK7PoMI/uCOcmhdI5k49KVyHKiY=; b=maQ8pzmO/+8LTtxSjxEjQTzfePA/+jI9O+FDiFxvCmQsFdxNPRlP8/Gz2rROXJmzVp 9HHN6PUXJGYjZRGSwfVfos5tJME/Om4wTFQrUBteOlHNKkxlUEKiXY5a15wO3pOMJpxf A/tTMli7s8pg/hDwz+uXlW2rQiSzFDHO/UgI4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=vs12IWG0ai6LySzXn+rnoEw2vbkG9LgLZutoYebV81wMzQeUgp/3eeZLu4E+dlFdnM Wg+HXzucWCJ3yfd6HDHgmnoT+gRb310jFFK7kc00Vsd1cxGPe/M1BJEeL94p7jQpGSv8 uPLPzi4HOSfci8INreoAbdcVz5M03wL1gdIs8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.101.199.23 with SMTP id b23mr2211315anq.143.1259664860933; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:54:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <caa.54f8b65a.38463f0d@aol.com>
References: <caa.54f8b65a.38463f0d@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:54:20 +0200
Message-ID: <5bc37fd40912010254x3ec04630o8111d33e35530d54@mail.gmail.com>
From: Patrick Frejborg <pfrejborg@gmail.com>
To: HeinerHummel@aol.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: rrg@irtf.org, rw@firstpr.com.au
Subject: Re: [rrg] Constraints due to the need for widespread voluntary adoption
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: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:54:33 -0000

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:42 AM,  <HeinerHummel@aol.com> wrote:
> Your (and other's) future routing architecture depends heavily on the
> continued existence of non-IP / telephone network architecture. You mention
> millions (billions ?) of mobile handsets and are afraid of their prefixes.
> All I hear is mapping, mapping, mapping: enum-mapping, RLOC-mapping...
>
Heiner,

I have taken another approach, going after the flat address structure
and introducing a hierarchy level on top of the old one. No mapping is
needed.
And I share your concern about having a mapping database for routing
information - guess it would be the main target in a cyberwar
situation, either by hacking it or change the legislation in a wartime
situation to take control of the database (?) - the question is, is it
possible for one nation to take down another nation's Internet
infrastructure by getting access to the mapping database??
Note! This is an open question since I haven't studied the mapping
solutions in detail

-- patte

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status