Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

Hi Heiner,

> A TARA-router will have a TARA-map which consists of TARA-links each of 
> which is confined by two TARA nodes. A TARA-link is either strict or 
> loose. A loose TARA-link is the concatenation of strict and/or other 
> loose TARA-links and/or GRE-tunnels across non-TARA-aware classical 
> internet.


So, during this tunneling phase, it seems like the database is O(N^2) in 
the number of possible links.


> Each strict/loose TARA-link has a weight value which reflects the number 
> of hops. 


Is this updated dynamically?


> Hereby some approximation-algorithm is required to determine 
> the adequate weight value for the inter-domain-GRE-tunnel, somehow 
> derived from the TARA-locators of its end nodes, or it may be well-known 
> from OSPF if the GRE-tunnel is intra-domain. Though normally the viewed 
> strict TARA-links are expected to be from the own geopatch, they may as 
> well, in single cases, cross have of the globe. The big deal is to 
> provide algorithms such that each TARA-router ( particularly a 
> geopatch-border node) can compute the identical set of (mainly looser) 
> TARA-links which form a skimmed representation of the geopatch’s 
> topology and which has to be disseminated in a larger scope i.e. into 
> the surrounding geopatches. This is not an easy task to do or to 
> describe by few lines, especially when you envision maybe about 5 
> recursive repetitions, and that each TARA-router within the same 
> geopatch shall get the same complete TARA-map with the own geopatch in 
> the center (no Istanbul effect !). Furthermore, not only remoteness but 
> also the density of some “area” shall affect the scale ratio to be 
> applied in order to select a subset of TARA-nodes (partially by 
> computation) plus the computation of TARA-links which are to 
> interconnect them. Different from former descriptions: If there is at 
> least one TARA-router within some geopatch, then there should be at 
> least one TARA-router thereof be communicated worldwide together with at 
> least one TARA-link to it.


Suppose that a geopatch has only a single TARA-router in it.  It then 
becomes the decapsulator for all TARA traffic arriving into that 
geopatch.  Who pays for this router?  Who pays to deliver traffic from 
this router to the destination access ISP?

Again, if the TARA-router is not part of the interconnect and all local 
ISPs do not participate in the interconnect, then you would seem to have 
a connectivity issue.

> Tony wrote:
> 
> Please read Joel's posting again.  At the very least, ANY large name
> space needs to be managed, and that management needs to be hierarchical
> to scale.
> 
> 
> No: The geographical coordinates don’t have to be managed. We may need a 
> very local negotiation protocol in case two TARA-routers are inside the 
> same square-second. We may of course also add a height-component (see 
> RFC1712) and/or extent the scheme to consider fractions of square seconds.


Geographical coordinates are already a natural hierarchy anyway.  They 
will still need to be managed.  [Which geopatch am I in? Who manages the 
geopatch?]  More generally, everything in a network needs _some_ 
management.  We have not yet discovered the mechanisms for self-assembly 
of networks.

Tony