Alex Zinin <azinin@nexsi.com> writes:
> > Following this line, is it possible to imagine an architecture where
> > addresses are topologically significant and prefixes are also
> > topologically significant? And then having a mechanism for
> > name-to-prefix mapping?
> >
> > I might be far off from what "topologically significant" means
> > exactly.
>
> I smell a MONET discussion here ;)
Well, it is indeed coming from reflections on monet. Sorry for not
being able to participate more "lively" in the conversation here.
I'm in fact overwhelmed by the number of ways in which mobility is
addressed today: Mobile IP, HMIP/RegReg, DNS, SIP, manet, renumbering,
even multicast.
I would suggest that requirements for future routing architectures (be
it group a or b) should give clues about how to address certain issues
and help making distinctions. Or at least give a sense of what are
the wisest architectural choices that should be made when designing
for mobility.
What the drafts say is basically that mobility must be supported. But
what kind of mobility? And how to support it? If the intention is
not to impose definitive answers, maybe one could list how mobility is
done these days and say something like: we don't know what's better,
or we know that x doesn't scale well with y and all the other things
that are known but also all the other things that are unknown.
> Regarding name-to-prefix mapping... A name and an address are
> properties of a specific node, similarly to a DNS-name and IP
> address. I guess for MONET, one could envision something like part
> of name being a group id and its mapping to a prefix changing
> dynamically, while the rest is a host id and its mapping to the rest
> of address being more stable... but then I might not have had enough
> of my morning tea...
That's an interesting idea to address in monet, indeed. Provided that
changing dynamically DNS name-address pairs for networks is feasible.
Or, provided that future routing architectures will be part of an
Internet where naming schemes allow names for networks (not only for
hosts).
Sorry if I sound too simplistic with respect to issues that have been
long worked on by some of the audience here, I guess what I'm only
looking for is a coherent view of too many things.
Alex (P.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT