Re: [Speermint] Multihop routing

On Feb 26, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Otmar Lendl wrote:
> Consider email: it would be pointless to create a routing protocol for
> email which is keyed on domains. The number of domains is huge and  
> there
> is no way to aggregate these. The solution there is to use the DNS to
> map domains to the IP-addresses of the mail-servers.  These can be
> aggregated and are suitable as keys for routing protocols.
>
> We probably need to do the same for this problem:
>
> * Use a directory lookup to map TNs to other identifiers which
>   are better suited for a routing protocol.

Once you've done this, you are exactly at the point of an Internet  
email model.

> * Build a routing protocol on top of these identifiers.

Do Internet email providers relay email through each other day?  No.   
In fact, relaying is not considered good practice anymore.  I think  
this will work even worse with SIP.

> --------
>
> My proposals (draft-lendl-domain-policy-ddds-02 +
> draft-lendl-speermint-federations-03) propose to use
>
> - I-ENUM to map TN to SIP URIs

[..snip..]

> If we ever want to get rid of the PSTN as the "default route" to be
> uses when the destination isn't a peer of the source network, then
> we need an automatic routing protocol which supports transit networks.

There is a disconnect here with stating a goal of getting rid of the  
PSTN by using I-ENUM.  As far as I can tell, the entire purpose of I- 
ENUM is about the incumbent PSTN players retaining their strict control.

-andy

_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
Speermint@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint