Subject: Re: [rrg] Clarification

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:40:01 EDT

In einer eMail vom 25.07.2010 22:28:44 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

Heiner,

On Sunday 25 July 2010 at 20:28:20  [email-masked] sent:
> Creating/maintaining is a matter of effort,  and we may take advantage of 
> 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
My interest (as well as my expertise) is in routing, i.e. in enabling  
packet forwarding to the right egress-DFZ-router without any route collection,  
without any prefix building, and especially without looking at the dest.IP  
address of the packet, based on a topology which is strict in the near  and 
loose and looser the more remote network parts are.
 
Beyond that egress-DFZ-router forwarding should continue as of today,  i.e. 
the (unchanged) remaining routers towards the destination should do  their 
OSPF stuff and classical IPv4-forwarding.
 
For the long-term, my TARA-solution is able to shift this end-point of  
TARA-forwarding closer to the egress router and even such  that the  egress 
router itself becomes the TARA-forwarding endpoint eventually. 
Even more: The endpoint of TARA-forwarding could even become the  
destination host.
I can only invite everyone to follow this long and promising road of  
advanced routing technology.
 
Employing the term "loc/id-split", TARA-forwarding is done due to some  
prepended TARA-Locator (which means the "loc" ) and classical forwarding  
thereafter is done due to the current IPv4, IPv6, and-or others (which means the  
"id"). 
 
Altogether classical IP-forwarding is split into TARA-forwarding followed  
by classical IP forwarding.
Similar to LISP : There, classical IP-forwarding is split into  
LISP-forwarding followed by classical IP forwarding. I have no idea how ILNP can  do 
the second part of the route in this way ( so I wonder why
Fred Baker prefers ILNP rather than LISP :-(
 
Therefore, it is not my "business" to look for any new "identifer"  .
 
And also: My goal is to improve routing, including mobile  routing. Toni, 
you only see (at the moment)
this identifier uniqueness. What whould you do if  "your" globally  unique 
identifier can't be seen?
I would be able to start a broadcast search - well scoped of course. But  
you in spite of your unique identifer are lost !!!
 
Heiner

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

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