Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs

[Peter Sherbin <[e-mail]>]

> I tend to think that the reasons are so obvious...

Precisely. To function smoothly the Internet requires a set of access points patterned in and around planet's surface, atmo- / aquasphere and crust (pick the "proper" density of AP/sq.km). Keep in mind that any end system can connect seamlessly (wired or wireless) to any access point. The model suggests that an individual ISP supports a certain part of AP grid with no control whatsoever over end systems. No single ISP seems to be excited about such a model.

Thanks,

Peter

--- On Mon, 12/28/09, [e-mail] <[e-mail]> wrote:

> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs
> To: "RRG" <[e-mail]>
> Date: Monday, December 28, 2009, 2:02 AM
> 
> On Dec 27, 2009, at 10:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On 2009-12-28 14:17, Xu Xiaohu wrote:
> > ...
> >>> This argument fails for exactly the same
> reason that geographically
> >>> based BGP aggregation fails.
> >> 
> >> Brian, who has ever done it ?
> > 
> > Nobody, as far as I know.
> > 
> >> Why do you say this and what do you mean by saying
> this ?
> > 
> > There have been a lot of geo-based or metro-based
> proposals over
> > the years. Most recently, draft-hain-ipv6-geo-addr.
> > As far as I know, none of them has ever been deployed,
> because
> > this isn't how Internet economics works. There is no
> financial
> > incentive to deploy geographically based exchange
> points which also
> > act as address delegators to customers. (Note, there
> is no technical
> > argument against it. But nobody knows how to make
> money out of it.)
> 
> I'm curious. Has anyone ever fully/clearly articulated the
> *reasons* behind the absence of financial incentive to
> embrace addressing and routing solutions that would create
> (actually, to restore) a binding association between
> addressing and geography -- or better yet, made a positive
> argument for the financial incentives and broader economic
> factors that often recommend deploying networks in
> aggressively geography-indifferent patterns?
> 
> I tend to think that the reasons are so obvious as to be
> self-evident, but I'd be quite surprised to find that
> everyone's list of self-evident reasons is identical.
> 
> Can anyone point me to some approximation of an
> "authoritative list" of reasons? If not, does anyone see any
> merit (or problem) in the idea of compiling such a list?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> TV
> 
> > By the way, I don't consider HRA locators to be
> geo-based. They
> > are fundmentally PA locators. The geographic part is
> secondary.
> > In RANGI, you don't mention any geo component of the
> locators.
> > 
> > But this was all a side comment. What I meant is that
> the problem
> > of mapping PI identifiers to PA locators is just the
> same as
> > mapping geo addresses to topological addresses. I
> don't see any
> > evidence that the mapping can be significantly more
> compact
> > than if the identifiers are assigned randomly. Wei
> Zhang seemed
> > to argue that by some special assignment scheme for
> identfiers,
> > we can get a significantly smaller map. I would like
> to see
> > the data supporting that.
> > 
> >> 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.
> > 
> > My point is that aggregation of EIDs is basically
> artificial.
> > 
> >> 
> >> By sticking to  non-routable identifiers none
> of the 14 solutions becomes any better than LISP.
> > 
> > At some level they are probably all isomorphic, yes.
> Except maybe ILNP.
> > 
> >> Note, not only IPv4 / IPv6 addresses are
> non-routable, AS numbers aren't either.
> > 
> > But there are about 10 times fewer active AS numbers
> than there are active
> > prefixes. So flat-routing on AS numbers would gain one
> order of magnitude
> > immediately.
> > 
> >> With 99 % of the hosts being mobile, wouldn't it
> be appropriate to have mainly provider-independent FQDNs
> > 
> > Well, yes, which is why Christian Vogt's proposal for
> name-based
> > sockets is very interesting. But actually it only
> hides the problem
> > in the socket layer; the problem doesn't go away.
> > 
> >> 
> >> 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?
> > 
> > If the locator is PA, sure. But that's the problem -
> making the locator PA.
> > 
> >> 
> >> 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?
> > 
> > Well, until people drop the stupidity of reverse DNS
> lookup as a "security check"
> > it's very hard to drop this. Of course it's bogus. (Do
> you really care
> > that my FQDN right now is
> 121.98.142-??.bitstream.orcon.net.nz?)
> > 
> >   Brian
> > _______________________________________________
> > rrg mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
>