Subject: [rrg] New version of hIPv4

From: Patrick Frejborg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:05:55 +0300

Hi all,

I'd like to announce that an update to the hIPv4 framework draft is
now available at http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-frejborg-hipv4-08.txt.

There are two major changes.

First, an identifier placeholder has been added to the locator header.
With this flag a host identifier scheme, such as HIP, ILNP or NBS, can
be added to the locator header - when desired. The end
user/application have a choice to use a session identifier (can be
found in some transport protocols), a host identifier or no identifier
at all.

Second, I took a study what could be accomplish in the future and
assumed that the forwarding plane at some stage (a decade or more) is
replaced and the locator swap functionality can be replaced with three
forwarding modes. The outcome is
- the edge locators needs only to be unique at the private network or
in an ISP network, thus no RIR process is needed for the edge locators
- the edge locator can use the whole 32 bit locator space
- only ISP should be able apply for core locators, each core locator
can contain a full 32 bit edge locator space
- a 32 x 32 bit locator space is achieved

So please have a look on this, perhaps I have missed something
fundamental here and the architecture is broken.

If the architecture is theoretically functional you could say that
locator freedom is achieved, but not only locator freedom - also
identifier freedom is achieved.

I think the framework has become enough mature that it can enter the
process described in RFC 5743 - thus asking kindly the chairs to
consider the draft as a candidate for publication.

If granted, a document shepherd is needed - Aaron pointed out the
author shouldn't take that role - any volunteer?

I know that this architecture is controversial and may not get
consensus to be published - if You think it is too controversial (or
the architecture is broken, too broken English etc) please speak up as
soon as possible but latest on the 15th of September 12:00 CET so the
reviewers valuable time is not wasted- thanks!

-- patte

---

From: Dae Young KIM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:33:12 +0900

Hi, Patrick,

I'd join a group not finding your proposal anything controversial. You've
proposed a hierarchical addressing which I'd find is very appropriate.

Decoupling the exterior routing and interior routing is something Toni and I
have raised several times in the list. I'd believe your idea is close to
ours in that sense.

You carefully used the term 'locator' instead of 'address', since,
apparently, employing separate identifiers is one of your option. If you'd
rely on a technique like MTCP, you wouldn't need separate identifiers, I'd
suppose.

A lot of people in this list are very sensitive about use of the term
'address', but, again, to me, your scheme is a hierarchical addressing using
'global area address' and 'local node-interface address'.

Anyway, the idea of segregating address space and decoupling interior and
exterior routings, I'd believe, is a promising way of leading to a scalable
routing paradigm.

A very good job.

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Patrick Frejborg <[email-masked]>wrote:

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

-- 
DY

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:06:54 -0700

> author shouldn't take that role - any volunteer?

Patrick,

For now, while the document is still within the RG, you're more than welcome to shepherd.

As with other documents, you should open discussion within the RG, do a last call, and then we'll do a formal consensus check.

Tony

---

From: Patrick Frejborg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:58:59 +0300

> As with other documents, you should open discussion within the RG, do a last call, and then we'll do a formal consensus check.

Ack - I'll be the document shepherd and the document is hereafter to
be reviewed by RG, the plan is to spin out 09-version after 15th of
September. Ran's comment is taken into account and will be
incorporated in 09.

Dae, thanks for your kind words!

Patrick