Subject: Re: [rrg] FW: I-D Action:draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-08.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 17:00:57 EDT

In einer eMail vom 25.05.2010 16:09:30 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

– A  topological location name, the locator, must target node, not  
interface.
I think this is not the point. The location name must identify that entity  
(call it node or interface) where forwarding based on the location name  
terminates.

–  Intra-domain and inter-domain routing must be distinct. Intra-domain 
routing  must be based on locators that follow topology.
From my TARA-view: this would be desirable to speed up forwarding inside  
all traversed nodes and do one or three table lookups for next hop  
determination, i.e. speed up forwarding by factor 20. But it is not a  requirement 
for eliminating the scalability problem.

Inter-domain routing must be based on routing domain IDs (AS  numbers) and 
not on IP address prefixes.
Try it. But remember when you have found out that it doesn't work: AS  
numbers are not topological, are not routable. 

–  [Location/identity split] There must be a node identification system 
that maps  a given universal identifier to a tuple of {routing domain ID + 
locator}. The  solution is numerical bi-directionally aware DNS-like system. The 
DNS system  shall then map names to identifiers.
TARA is such a system, or at least a system which solves all the discussed  
RRG problems plus more:
Problems most people cannot even imagine that they can be solved.  
Geopatch-scoped broadcast would enable mobility without home agents.But if I  have 
seen it correctly then there is no broadcast address in IPv6 anymore:-( 
 
Heiner