Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs

[Xu Xiaohu <[e-mail]>]

 

 

  _____  

发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 [e-mail]
发送时间: 2009年12月27日 21:40
收件人: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
抄送: [e-mail]
主题: Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs

 

In einer eMail vom 26.12.2009 20:34:56 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [e-mail]:

This argument fails for exactly the same reason that geographically
based BGP aggregation fails.

Brian, who has ever done it ? Why do you say this and what do you mean by saying this ?

It must be something quite different from what I understand.  

 

 

This thread "Aggregatable EIDs" is concerned about aggregating EIDs and the problems with mapping the prefixes to RLOCs. This objective wouldn't even exist if both EID and RLOC-ID are  asigned a "third" information (I proposed it not long ago) which itself is universally routable and which wouldn't need any authoritative provisioner either. No need for aggregating any two EIDs! No need for mapping any EID-IP-address to any RLOC-IP-address provided that they share a common attribute that is derived from geographical coordinates.

 

By sticking to  non-routable identifiers none of the 14 solutions becomes any better than LISP. 

Note, not only IPv4 / IPv6 addresses are non-routable, AS numbers aren't either. 

 

With 99 % of the hosts being mobile, wouldn't it be appropriate to have mainly provider-independent FQDNs  

and a DNS that is fairly up-to-date with the correlation between a respective HIT and the current location, i.e. completely independent of the current AS? 

 

 

Since the HIT is already a provider-independent host identifier, why should each host be assigned with a FQDN as another provider-independent ID? Taken the current cell-phone mobile network as an example, does every cell-phone need a FQDN-like global name besides the cell-phone number itself?

 

Xiaohu

 

The geographic coordinates would be the only non-mobile data in a world of mobile hosts, mobile routers and fast changed providers

 

Heiner