Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs
HeinerHummel@aol.com Wed, 30 December 2009 00:06 UTC
Return-Path: <HeinerHummel@aol.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 282583A68E8 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:06:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.710, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y5NK+Grtmsr0 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:06:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imr-db01.mx.aol.com (imr-db01.mx.aol.com [205.188.91.95]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59A8D3A68C4 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:06:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo-ma03.mx.aol.com (imo-ma03.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.138]) by imr-db01.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id nBU06Acu003960; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:06:10 -0500
Received: from HeinerHummel@aol.com by imo-ma03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id i.cba.4df3b8d5 (48624); Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:06:08 -0500 (EST)
From: HeinerHummel@aol.com
Message-ID: <cba.4df3b8d5.386bf34d@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:05:33 -0500
To: tony.li@tony.li
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1262131533"
X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5021
X-AOL-SENDER: HeinerHummel@aol.com
Cc: rrg@irtf.org, zhangwei734@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:06:43 -0000
Hi Tony See comments inserted Heiner In einer eMail vom 29.12.2009 22:04:13 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt tony.li@tony.li: 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. No. Take an OSPF-network with N nodes and with n EBGP-TARA-nodes (N>>n) being the interfaces to the outside internet. It will contribute approx. 2n to 3n loose links which interconnect these n EBGP-TARA-nodes(assuming that this ISP network doesn't want to disclose any knowledge about its internal topological structure). And this is true in general: if there are n nodes, the computation of the interconnecting links will determine about 2n to 3n links. > Each strict/loose TARA-link has a weight value which reflects the number > of hops. Is this updated dynamically? Yes, it should. However the above computation of the interconnecting loose links also recognizes all those nodes which are closer to some particular TARA-link's end node A than to any other such one B-i.. If A dropped out, its surrounding nodes may still "stick to A" for some time: After all, the advertisement-flooding of A and its adjacent loose links into other geopatches is only to attract packets. However, when the packets have arrived at this geopatch, the local TARA-router will have a precise map of all strict TARA-links Admitted, if A were at the rim of the geopatch and dropped out, an immediate re-computation would be appropriate. > 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? What is precisely the scenario ? You pressume that the destination EID has a TARA-locator, being put into the DNS by some non-TARA-router ????:-( 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. Again, the horse must come before the carriage - or do I misunderstanding something? > 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. But not the coordinates themselves. [Which geopatch am I in? Answer: By assigning a particular TARA-locator to/by the TARA-router itself. 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. This is an understatement :-) For about 10 years BGP supports VPN-site discovery for forming a VPN-tunnel network and for the sake of private traffic. Admitted, it sounds weird to build a VPN for the sake of PUBLIC traffic.But this is what we have to do (applies to TARA, applies to LISP, applies to lvip, applies to...) In case of TARA, multiple, let's say N isolated TARA-parts may exist: single isolated TARA-routers and/ or clusters of strictly interconnected TARA-routers. They need to be interconnected by GRE-tunnels, and we have to find a way to do that by well determined o(N) many GRE-tunnels Heiner The TARA-router must know its geographical coordinates (by GPS or by looking into some geographical road map). Small mistakes and little bit of cheating would not hurt. After all they are only to attract traffic from remote places and as soon as packets entered the destination geopatch, each TARA-router would see the precise topology recognize thereof the right destination TARA-node (no matter whether the details of the coordinates are 100% correct or not) and can lookup the next hop. The question is indeed, where should TARA-forwarding end ? 3 Table lookups inside the destination geopatch, only! This may make TARA interesting even inside some OSPF network. But for sure, where ever a TARA-router finds out that its own TARA-locator matches the one of the destination, TARA-forwarding ends and traditional forwarding starts.
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs tvest
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs Peter Sherbin
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs tvest
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs Tony Li
- [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs hummelresearch
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs heinerhummel
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs Lixia Zhang
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs heinerhummel
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
- Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs heinerhummel
- [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs heinerhummel
- [rrg] Embedding geo info in PA addresses=>A compr… Xu Xiaohu