Subject: Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 10:12:30 +0900

Fred Baker wrote:

> I'm familiar with the paper "End to end arguments in system design"
> as well. I'm also familiar with John Day, although I suspect I have
> learned more from him than he has learned from me.

As for RINA by John Day, following description in wikipedia (if any
of you have better reference, hopefully open access one, let me know)
disturbed me:

	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_Internetwork_Architecture

	CLNP was an OSI-based protocol that addressed nodes instead
	of interfaces, solving the old multi-homing problem
	introduced by the ARPANET, and allowing for better routing
	information aggregation.

As CLNP addresses basically are telephone numbers, they are
aggregated by country code, which requires reliable telephone
exchangers exist connecting all the international and intra-national
long distance carriers in each country.

Similarly, aggregation by area code needs similar telephone
exchangers in each area.

That is, John, seemingly, think geography based addressing
is good, which is against our understanding that requiring
IXes in all the geographic regions is not practical.

Or, according to the E2E argument:

	The function in question can completely and correctly be
	implemented only with the knowledge and help of the
	application standing at the end points of the
	communication system. Therefore, providing that
	questioned function as a feature of the communication
	system itself is not possible.

providing multihoming function by telephone exchangers or
IXes, that is, "as a feature of the communication system
itself", completely and correctly is not possible.

Thus, if telephone exchangers or IXes fail and intra-national
network is partitioned, the result will be disastrous.

						Masataka Ohta

PS

Distribution of this mail is unlimited.