Subject: [rrg] Two new I-Ds on Routing Architecture for the Next Generation Internet (RANGI)

From: "Raj Jain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 01:14:45 -0600

Earlier this week, we submitted two new drafts: draft-xu-rangi-00.txt and
draft-xu-rangi-proxy-00.txt

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-rangi and 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-rangi-proxy

Both these drafts build on and explain the details of the RANGI
presentation I had given at the last RRG meeting in Minneapolis.
 
We would appreciate receiving your comments and suggestions for 
improvements.

Abstracts of the drafts are as follows:

draft-xu-rangi-00.txt
Routing Architecture for the Next Generation Internet (RANGI) 

   IRTF Routing Research Group (RRG) is exploring a new routing and
addressing
   architecture to meet the challenges that current Internet is facing,
especially in
   terms of routing scalability. This internet draft describes a new routing
and
   addressing architecture, called Routing Architecture for the Next
Generation
   Internet (RANGI) as a solution to the problems of scalability, mobility,
   multihoming, and traffic engineering. RANGI is a hybrid proposal that
combines and
   enhances the ideas from several proposals particularly those based on
   identifier/locator split approach. It introduces a hierarchical and
cryptographic
   host identifier and adopts a hierarchical routing mechanism to support
routing
   across multiple independent address spaces. To allow smooth transition
from IPv4
   to IPv6, it adopts an IPv6 address with an IPv4 embedded in the last four
bytes as
   locator. This also simplifies renumbering in case of change of service
providers.
   RANGI allows traffic engineering by allowing border routers to overwrite
the
   source addresses. It allows policy control on ID to address translation
by having
   a hierarchical resolution mechanism.

draft-xu-rangi-proxy-00.txt
A Transition Mechanism for      
Routing Architecture for the Next Generation Internet (RANGI)

   The Routing Architecture for the Next Generation Internet (RANGI) is
   a proposal for solving routing scalability, mobility, multihoming,
   traffic engineering and other issues facing the current Internet.
   RANGI is described in a separate document [RANGI]. This document
   describes a transition mechanism for RANGI. With this mechanism,
   legacy IPv4 or IPv6 hosts can communicate with RANGI hosts, and vice
   versa. This allows RANGI to be deployed incrementally in the current
   Internet.

Thanks.
-Raj Jain and Xiaohu Xu
-----------------------------------------------------
Raj Jain                      
Professor of Computer Science and Engineering                   
Washington University in St. Louis  
Campus Box 1045, One Brookings Drive
St. Louis, MO 63130
Phone: +1 314 935 4963
Email: [email-masked]
URL: http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain
------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Xu Xiaohu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:49:25 +0800

In fact, the RANGI proxy borrows some idea from the map&encap approach to
support communication between RANGI-aware hosts and legacy IPv4/v6 hosts. To
some extent, the map&encap can be considered as transition strategy for a
host-based id/locator split approach.That's to say, the Strategy A and B
(Herrin's Taxonomy)can be complementary.

Any comment  welcomed.

Xiaohu

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Raj Jain [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> 发送时间: 2009年3月6日 15:15
> 收件人: [email-masked]
> 主题: Two new I-Ds on Routing Architecture for the Next 
> Generation Internet (RANGI)
> 重要性: 高
> 
> Earlier this week, we submitted two new drafts: 
> draft-xu-rangi-00.txt and draft-xu-rangi-proxy-00.txt
> 
> Both these drafts build on and explain the details of the 
> RANGI presentation I had given at the last RRG meeting in Minneapolis.
>  
> We would appreciate receiving your comments and suggestions 
> for improvements.
> 
>    IRTF Routing Research Group (RRG) is exploring a new 
> routing and addressing
>    architecture to meet the challenges that current Internet 
> is facing, especially in
>    terms of routing scalability. This internet draft 
> describes a new routing and
>    addressing architecture, called Routing Architecture for 
> the Next Generation
>    multihoming, and traffic engineering. RANGI is a hybrid 
> proposal that combines and
>    identifier/locator split approach. It introduces a 
> hierarchical and cryptographic
>    host identifier and adopts a hierarchical routing 
> mechanism to support routing
>    across multiple independent address spaces. To allow 
> smooth transition from IPv4
>    to IPv6, it adopts an IPv6 address with an IPv4 embedded 
> in the last four bytes as
>    locator. This also simplifies renumbering in case of 
> change of service providers.
>    RANGI allows traffic engineering by allowing border 
> routers to overwrite the
>    source addresses. It allows policy control on ID to 
> address translation by having

---

From: Patrick Frejborg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:14:31 +0200

Hi Xiaohu,

I see similarities with my
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-frejborg-hipv4-01, which also fit
into strategy A and B. And when that happens the outcome is that it
will also fit into strategy C, the RIB is reduced.

I assume that you are thinking that the addressing scheme is broken
because it is flat, perhaps we need a new strategy where proposal like
ours could fit into. IMO, Internet is not obeying today Rekhter's law
""Addressing can follow topology or topology can follow addressing.
Choose one" because the addressing scheme (I refuse to use structure
here) is flat and the routing topology is hierarchical. So proposals
that are going after the addressing scheme should have an own strategy
in Tony's draft.
How to fix that is a technical issue and other strategies can be used
to develop a hierarchical addressing structure. I believe that there
are two major approaches
- keep the flat globally unique addressing scheme, is it IPv4 or IPv6
makes no difference, and try to solve the problem with new routing
paradigms
- create a new addressing structure and try to keep the current
routing topology, is it IPv4, IPv6 , HIP, etc is irrelevant at this
moment

All other addressing/location solutions that I can think of do have a
hierarchical structure with two or more layers - there was another
scheme but it got trashed in 1492.
So must the addressing structure of Internet really be flat???
If it must, please advise.

-- patte

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Xu Xiaohu <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
>