Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the recommendation process

Charrie Sun <> Tue, 15 December 2009 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54BB23A67FE for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:40:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.124
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.124 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.474, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dGbr8SBROmz0 for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:40:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4741C3A67F1 for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:40:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vws41 with SMTP id 41so1145900vws.15 for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:40:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=j/lI2NgtJusebttc9wH2GPU32V0DA5T+OyLu8EAOkfc=; b=upYz7L3liabk761hGdAZD+P1jszcOCIOGkhCv3REAzlVHl6GzB68MXV6m2owdagozA koMTPWiO890V0Gb1vsQacdxqNYS/ZxgubHEyP8nHOjF0TR5nySOP7UN0SKrgudmu+IBe qzVQaq5DcrzCq8t+44VikWk4uJlxSz7uYw3yM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=GgWRCb/3Nh6EplW6t9AHL1cqx/bRC26VznQ5Fm4OUA5g+Fc13J0IPqXYBivKQCDbof /J8KIEaXmAq9F78jxuvx8O+4ff7Et0544cm6aY43RA/7jdXt4sWN6FU+UB39aTKNHwn9 qxhDOGZGyJir1wJauGI+sdSen5uRfe9xM4n+s=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id m13mr1179172vcr.40.1260888013371; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:40:13 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:40:13 +0800
Message-ID: <>
From: Charrie Sun <>
To: "" <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e68f9f782379fc047ac55e69"
Subject: Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the recommendation process
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:40:31 -0000

   Hi Heiner,
   Thanks for your advice. I didn't fully catch your idea but i will try to
answer your questions inline.

>Sun Letong,
>your proposal shows that the strong belief in mapping doesn't crumble at

   I didn't think that mappings should be all in blocks (is that what you
mean?) and be not crumbled, i just think that edge address being allocated
individually, especially in tomorrow's IPv6 scene is rather rare. So the
vast block mappings would make mapping table size to be happily smaller.

>Speaking in analogy once more, I have tried - in vain - to convince people
that a routable namespace a la Manhattan, New >York is better than using a
non-routable namespace where you depend on >mapping. In New York you can
progress towards your destination without asking people at each junction of
avenue and street.

 Do you mean that to put the detailed address as well as the rough (city
level, or larger) address all in a packet? Or, it is like geo-based routing?
While i consider that very persuasive, i doubt its deployability. Would
current users change their address, especially in such a large scale? Trying
to solve the problem indirectly, i.e. using mapping, would be more

>Besides that the scalability problem could indeed become a non-issue (for
ever), it strikes me that    the inherent capabilities of geographical
coordinates-based routing wrt IP mobility aren't appreciated >neither by
Nokia nor Ericsson folks.

Sorry i didn't catch your last sentence.

>Good luck for your proposal

Best Regards,