Subject: Re: [rrg] Clarification

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 13:28:20 EDT

In einer eMail vom 25.07.2010 17:02:40 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

Researchers,

I think we must not attack each other  personally. Nor even each other's 
views.
We need to find the best solution  each of the design goals.

Right. And all may stay relaxed if we agreed that all solutions can be  
developed concurrently/one after the other and that there is no reason to  
believe that  ONE CHOSEN solution has to be picked (ILNP:-(  whereas all the 
others have to give up. In a preceding email I pointed out that  since RFC2547 
all vendor-specific basics have been standardized to transport L3-  and 
lower level information across a BGP network, of course for the initial  
intention of forming a VPN, but which may as well be exploited to support  
discovery of tight clusters of links and nodes as well as of disjoint clusters  
which will do IP forwarding by means of technologies W,X,Y,Z (LISP, ILNP,  
TARA,lvip). 
 
However there is some time pressure: inter-cluster tunnels rely on today's  
IPv4, i.e. any solution has to come in time prior IPv4 address space  
exhausts.

Here  we talk about identity/location split. Robin is against. Most but 
seem to be  for.
So with the identity/location split we encounter identifier  uniqueness. 
Whether it has to be global/universal or just local. Some hesitate  about 
this; others, like me, take universal uniqueness for  natural.
Natural is that perfect solutions (like creating and maintaining universal  
uniqueness) aren't natural.

Next  question: Uniqueness system is to be hierarchical or flat? Any 
arguments on  flatness side? But there is a ready-made solution. Is it reliable?
Are we  going any further with this ambiguity?

I propose this approach: Let's  answer the questions the reverse way.

1. Hierarchical or flat  uniqueness system?
2. Global/universal or just local uniqueness?
3.  Shall we make identity/location split?

Creating/maintaining is a matter of effort, and we may take advantage  of 
what exists, even if things are imperfect (MAC, IP). Important is that we can 
 straighten out clashes in case they seldomly happen. And there are many 
ways to  do it (even good old telephone technology had perfect solutions for 
handling  clashes)!.
 
Toni, you should better question the hierarchy for the location. 
And also: It is not of any help to pick some tiny aspect (here the  
identifier's uniqueness) and to ignore the big issues - however I do appreciate  
your emails :-).

Heiner

---

From: Toni Stoev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:28:33 +0300

Heiner,

On Sunday 25 July 2010 at 20:28:20 [email-masked] sent:
> what exists, even if things are imperfect (MAC, IP).

What about Dynamic DNS as an universal ID uniqueness system?
Besides existance, DDNS is no less supported than MAC addressing.
I got well surpised by Javier who redescribed the DDNS solution.

The Dynamic DNS perfectly fits the following design goals at once:

3.3. Scalable support for multi-homing
3.4. Scalable support for mobility
3.6. Decoupling location and identification
3.7. First-class elements
3.10. Deployability

I suggest we believe in perfection, for whichever we believe is true.

Toni