Subject: Re: [rrg] Universally unique identifier

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 02:58:58 EDT

In einer eMail vom 17.07.2010 20:21:26 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

> The  postal service would have issues when delivering confidential mail 
to Mr. Li  if two live at the same address. 

First hand experience says that  this is not the case.  ;-)

Nicely cast.

However, the authentication mechanisms used to confirm identity  are 
questionable.

OK., now with focus on internet routing:
1) Although seldom, clashes should be envisioned, recognized and  resolved
2) It should be possible to search the destination-identifiers in case  it 
doesn't happen to be present at the indicated location by means of   
well-scoped fast broadcast search  (TARA would enable such a  search and would 
hereby make a valuable contribution  wrt MIP)
Heiner

Tony

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 07:02:53 EDT

In einer eMail vom 18.07.2010 09:37:11 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

On  Saturday 17 July 2010 at 20:36:16 [email-masked] sent:
>  Toni,
> 
> 
> I think you are pursuing the wrong objective  (which is global uniqueness 
of the identifier).

Does anyone else think  global/universal uniqueness of the identifier is 
the wrong  objective?
---------------------
HH:
There are a few things to be added:
 
During the incremental deployment phase TARA depents on the current  
globally unique IPv4 addresses !!!
Not anymore after it were fully deployed. Hence there is some time  
pressure (but not from the alternatives like LISP or ILNP).
------------------------------

> 
> There are millions of people with the surname  Li and yet they aren't a 
serious problem for the postal services.

For  each letter sent to Li at a given postal address the sender already  
knows/expects the right Li is at that address.

> IMHO ( I have  expressed it many times and did also show how to get it 
done ) the Internet  routing should also  become as smart  so that local 
uniqueness of  any identifier will do.

So, Heiner, the Internet routing system with  its smartness would provide 
node identity for free roaming and session  preservation?
-------------------
HH:
First: provide forwarding to the right TARA-egress-router just based on the 
 TARA-locator i.e. without checking the additional identifier (which would 
be the  IPv4 address e.g.)  If the TARA-egress router had become another one 
 due to roaming, though within the same geopatch, a geopatch-local 
broadcast  search may find him  (btw without any home agent's help).
--------------------

In my opinion the Internet has been  successful so far because of IP 
addressing and the DNS, which are systems that  give general uniqueness to 
nodes/interfaces. And I think these uniqueness  systems give consistency to the sum 
of networks we have.
 
-------------------------
HH:
Sure. There has to be at least ONE sort of uniqueness. But given that  I 
can add/utilize some uniqueness system like the geographical coordinates,  
then local uniqueness will do after I have reached the egress router of the  
added uniqueness system.
-----------------------

> 
> Remember MADCAP. It was a similar mad idea (RFC2730).  It tried to manage 
a clash-free multicast address assignment - globally. It  didn't fly at all.

I may find the time to read RFC 2730. But would you  summarize it here with 
regard to local/universal uniqeness of  identifiers?

-------------------------
HH: Not worth to look for it. It's about a globally distributed system of  
servers which ought to hand out multicast addresses  for temporary use.  
Single-source multicast (ss-pim) replaced that mad idea.
I wonder why nobody complains about the hassle of administering Unicast  
prefixes.
---------------------------

---

From: Toni Stoev <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:22:51 +0300

On Monday 19 July 2010 at 21:54:29 Scott Weeks sent:
> 
> From the operator community, I would say that in the long run it wouldn't only be security advocates that'd have an issue and global/universal uniqueness of the identifier will have an adverse affect on acceptance of a New Thing.
> 
> scott 
>

Scott, it's actually privacy that Tony has pointed out.
So, what would prevent operators from liking universal uniqueness?

Toni

---

From: Toni Stoev <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:23:32 +0300

On Tuesday 20 July 2010 at 12:36:56 Javier Ubillos sent:
> On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 09:55 +0300, Toni Stoev wrote:
> > On Sunday 18 July 2010 at 20:28:05 Tony Li sent:
> > > 
> > > Users need a way to be wholly anonymous to the network.  They should be able to (privately) arrange their access connectivity and then be able to access the network without concerns that they can be identified based on their link layer or network layer information.
> > 
> > How about using a temporary fully qualified domain number each time they choose to roam? Nodes would obtain one on demand by a publicly available dynamic domain number service.
> 
> Are you referring to a service like dyndns and no-ip? Where you register
> an arbitrary sub-domain name to their service and continually update the
> IP?
> 
> E.g. javier.dynamic-dns.org  ->  IN A 193.10.64.51

Yes, Javier. This is a good example.

> Does any one know how well/badly this could scale?

Since there isn't much special about numbers, this would scale even better than with names.

> I've had thoughts along this path my self, where each host at will can
> register an arbitrary "throw-away" sub-domain.

And after throwing it away, it can be reused right away.

> To whom should one be anonymous to?

Very accurate question. I would like to read answers.

> Which turnover would people require on these identifiers?

Putting identifiers into TCP sockets for mobility/multihoming.

> E.g. would it be sufficient if each ISP provides the service to its
> customers, and that the change rate corresponds more or less to the rate
> of IP changes (dhcp). Which could mean anything from never to a few
> times per day.

Reasonable behavior.

> In the case where the local ISP provides the service, I can't see why
> this wouldn't be a great idea, if the ISP can provide IP's, it should
> also be able to provide a few sub-domain names.

Yes, that's right. If the ISP is a mobile operator it would supply its customers with identifiers for roaming among access points.

> In the case where the service would be provided by random sites on the
> Internet, well, it is already provided for free today, but I don't know
> how it would scale (or how a business model would work) if all hosts
> start registering names automatically.

Many non-mobile service ISPs employ Dynamic DNS too.
For inter-ISP roaming random/devoted sites are the solution.
The model is quite analogous to the one with names.

> // Javier

Best regards, Javier
Toni