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

[[e-mail]]

In einer eMail vom 01.12.2009 11:54:32 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[e-mail]:

On Tue,  Dec 1, 2009 at 11:42 AM,  <[e-mail]> 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.
Well, a routable namespace (as is used by TARA) could be the base for even  
time-of-day routing.
Look, TV-multicast with millions of receivers e.g. multicasting a soccer  
final for 90 minutes would bring immense traffic load, which needs to be  
well-balanced.
 
Today in Sueddeutsche Zeitung an article about smart grid powerline network 
 mentions that Cisco sees a 100 times bigger network here to come compared 
with  the internet. But so far, the reaction wrt TARA's abolishing the  
scalability problem even if it were 1000 times bigger was that the task is  only 
to reduce the problem.
 
 
Patte wrote: 
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



Yes,  LISP's distributed database is either no reduction of the  routing 
churn (if too broad) and otherwise a huge polticial problem - both  in case of 
a cyberwar attack as well as due to the potential threat as to  decline 
service. The EU's Galileo initiative is not because GPS isn't good  enough but 
because its service  could be denied by the political  owner.
Imho, this is the most severe non-starter argument. Thank you for  sharing 
this concern.
 
Heiner