Subject: Re: [rrg] Another Routing RG Straw Poll

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 04:25:05 EDT

In einer eMail vom 18.05.2010 00:22:12 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

На  Tuesday 18 May 2010 00:19:08 [email-masked] написа:

>   Multi-homing is just a special case of multipath forwarding.

Heiner,  can you back this statement with arguments?

Sure. Take any network topology. Conceive even the user being a network  
node. Run my "beyond-Dijstra" with some/each individual destination node being 
 the root as shown in the diagram on
 _www.hummel-research.de_ (http://www.hummel-research.de)   .Get ALL routes 
to a particular destination node. Regard the outcome from any  network 
node's perspective (incoming/outgoing arrows)...and do this in  particular from 
the source node's view.
While this is pure abstract graph theory, the IRTF discusses CES versus  
CEE, i.e. whether the networking layer is a matter of the network nodes or of  
the (shim6-aware) users.
TARA would eliminate all the scalability problems (size,speed,churn) such  
radically that it wouldn't become a problem to also include  users as 
topological nodes, with "multi-home" adjacent links.
 
Heiner

Toni
_______________________________________________
rrg  mailing  list
[email-masked]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 20:34:28 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>

    >> "The RG has rough consensus that separating identity from location..."

    > Personally, I don't think the RRG has a sufficient consensus on what
    > the terms mean ... We are agree that a locator and an identifier

Ahem. "location" != "locator", and "identity" != "identifier". "identity" and
"location" refer to the ABSTRACT CONCEPTS, not _any_ specific instantiation
of those concepts. The question posed uses the terms about the abstract
concepts very deliberately, for the exact reason you mention.

	Noel

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 14:22:37 EDT

In einer eMail vom 22.05.2010 13:23:35 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

>  Tony can you add a fifth statement to the straw poll:
> 
>  
> (V): Readdressing is not considered to be a viable and longlasting  
solution;
> nor is readdressing without overwriting the old  address,
>       i.e. readdressing by placing the  new address in front of the old 
one and
> calling it IP Route  Prefix.

Sorry, but it's not my poll and that one is already  running.  You're more
that welcome to start one of your  own.

Tony

Thanks anyway, but I am sure, no one would even vote. Proof: No one  
responds to the content itself.
 
I can foresee a coming discussion on NSAPs.  I guess I am  the only person 
ever who once wrote an algorithm to determine the leading  substring of 2 to 
5 digits area-code/city code of  German telefon  numbers.
That is not trivial btw. Also, neighboring country codes do not reflect  
neighborhood of the countries themselves. And they are top political. And  
they still do not reflect (just as I was taught more than ten years  ago) 
internet routing.
 
Heiner