RE: [RRG] GSE?
Peter Sherbin <pesherb@yahoo.com> Thu, 12 June 2008 00:35 UTC
Envelope-to: rrg-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:36:16 +0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=59h4UGw70kxdevHoEr0H/0Ff4eKbGnhq/2yRwlFAIQUBw7zUVXIy7oZioIohntyEaEFoNRK7xkWePV/ZPUQ0DFOBeVIeHzu6KVbcsdd7gQfrOwrdqjpGFORATfsrtWGrLXBUWPXMV208wx+ZM8wMh1L9fmye5KTLGFuFi1no8Ag=;
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:35:11 -0700
From: Peter Sherbin <pesherb@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: pesherb@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [RRG] GSE?
To: "'Mayutan A.'" <mayutan.arumaithurai@gmail.com>, 'Robin Whittle' <rw@firstpr.com.au>, tony.li@tony.li
Cc: 'Routing Research Group' <rrg@psg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID: <471804.86195.qm@web58714.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
> The ESD would be a constant when changing ISPs. That's the whole point. > Identifiers are decoupled from locators. But that is not all. Forming a socket requires a port number. Basically a "complete" application to application "address" looks like ASN+IP Address+Port. How about devices with no ports, e.g. smart dust? What I am trying to say is that the "true" ESD needs to name / identify an ultimate source / destination of bits. Thanks, Peter --- On Wed, 6/11/08, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> wrote: > From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> > Subject: RE: [RRG] GSE? > To: "'Mayutan A.'" <mayutan.arumaithurai@gmail.com>, "'Robin Whittle'" <rw@firstpr.com.au> > Cc: "'Routing Research Group'" <rrg@psg.com> > Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2008, 1:34 PM > Hi Mayutan, Robin, > > Isn't the Six-One proposal by Christian Vogt an > enhancement of the > GSE. > http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-vogt-rrg-six-one-01.txt > > Correct me if I am wrong. > > You are exactly correct. I still encourage folks to read > GSE independently, > just so you have some perspective on Christian's > changes. > > Also, some of the work that Ran Atkinson has done has been > in part derived > from GSE. > > > GSE seems to have been developed briefly around 1997. I > understand > that applying it to IPv6 as used today would involve > major > changes > in routers, host stacks and some or all applications. > > There may well be some major attractions in doing this, > if > it could > be done, but it sounds like a radical thing on which to > bet > the > future of the Net. > > > Welcome to the IRTF. Our job is research. No job too > large, no change > unthinkable. > > > Could you or someone else put together a proposal and > link > to it > from the RRG wiki? An 8 page summary and analysis > document > would be > good too. > > > Others should feel free to step up here. I'm trying to > remain neutral. > > > A crucial part of this would be the time-frame for > transitioning the > current IPv6 system to whatever it is you are planning, > and > then > having a transition plan for most end-users from IPv4 to > the > new system. > > I think it would also be good to explain why you would > prefer to do > this in a hurry for IPv6 - due to whatever urgency you or > other > people might think about the IPv4 scaling problem - > rather > than > fixing the IPv4 problem with a map-encap scheme and then > being able > to take more time on whatever it is you propose for IPv6. > > > I'm not in a hurry to do anything. There's no > need. I'd much rather Get It > Right. Whatever we do here is forever. > > > I haven't read enough to know how it provides > multihoming > and > portability (of the ESD part of the address) when > changing > ISPs. > > > The ESD would be a constant when changing ISPs. That's > the whole point. > Identifiers are decoupled from locators. > > > So how does the Routing Goop and STP get set when the > packet > leaves > the site for another? Does a router change them or does > the > sending > host have to get it right. Does there need to be a > mapping > function > and consequently a mapping database to determine what to > set > these > to, since the ESD is what uniquely identifies the > destination host? > > > Presumably set by a router when you exit the subnet and/or > the site. Yes, > there needs to be a mapping database to determine > destination RG and ESD. > One might reasonably extend DNS to do this. No mapping > database is needed > in the site's local routers as they would presumably be > configured with the > RG or learn it via some other management mechanism such as > SNMP, DHCP, the > IGP, or your favorite NMS. > > > What lead to the demise of GSE ten years ago? > > > I wasn't directly involved, but my read was that it was > politics. Because > it modified v6, it was unacceptable to those that felt that > v6 was perfect. > We seem to be over that now... > > Regards, > Tony > > > -- > to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with > the > word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message > text body. > archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & > ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg -- to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
- Re: [RRG] GSE? David Conrad
- Re: [RRG] GSE? Robin Whittle
- [RRG] GSE? Robin Whittle
- Re: [RRG] GSE? Mayutan A.
- RE: [RRG] GSE? Tony Li
- RE: [RRG] GSE? Peter Sherbin
- re: [RRG] GSE? Xu Xiaohu
- re: [RRG] GSE? Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [RRG] GSE? Noel Chiappa
- Re: [RRG] GSE? Brian E Carpenter
- RE: [RRG] GSE? Tony Li
- re: [RRG] GSE? Xu Xiaohu
- re: [RRG] GSE? Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [RRG] GSE? Lixia Zhang
- Re: [RRG] GSE? David Williamson
- Re: [RRG] GSE? Jari Arkko