[Irtf-rr] Just an idea for a self organiziong IPv6 address space network

[Dmitri Krioukov]

For one of the best attempts to uncover the
current Internet hierarchy incorporating customer-
provider relationship please see this:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sagarwal/research/BGP-hierarchy/

However, it doesn't change a bit in calculations
derived from the fundamental Kleinrock's results.
And this is essentially reinforced by Curtis's
considerations below.
--
dima.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:24 PM
> To: Xiaowei Yang
> Cc: Dmitri Krioukov; Pepmiller, Craig E.; irtf-rr@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [Irtf-rr] Just an idea for a self organiziong IPv6 address
> space network 
> 
> 
> 
> In message <pzvbs5c3oeh.wl@cordelia.lcs.mit.edu>, Xiaowei Yang writes:
> > 
> > just out of curiosity, can someone explain what "meshy networks" are?
> > I understand Internet is no telephone network, and does not have a
> > strict hierarchy. but the customer-provider relationship defines a
> > hierarchical relationship, and two provider trees may be connected by
> > horizontal peering links. so, why is the idea of self organizing
> > address space so surprising?
> 
> 
> There are at least a dozen providers who would consider themselves to
> be "tier 1" and at the top of the IPv4 hierarchy.  There are other
> providers connected to more than one "tier 1" provider.  Many second
> tier providers and some large enterprises have so far flatly refused
> to take address space from a higher level provider block, citing the
> impossible task of renumbering all of the organizations that have
> recieved numbers from them using current technology.
> 
> Historically the top level providers in particular have been known for
> their reluctance to cooperate in the area of route registry.  They
> want blocks of addresses and they want any other party to simply trust
> that whatever routes they announce are valid.  I would expect far more
> vigorous refusal to accept addresses dynamically and than the
> reluctance to register routing information.
> 
> Providers have always cited a chicken and egg problem in dynamicly
> learning such things as the IP addresses of routers.  (Routers are
> needed to reach things and to reach things they need addresses).
> Routers therefore have always had a configured set of addresses to
> speed recovery in the event of a massive outage.  Routers don't rely
> on other services such as DNS for this reason (a resolver is available
> but cannot be needed to bring up services).
> 
> Any algorithm would have a tough time determining which of the few
> thousand AS where top level vs some lower level.  One could argue that
> this is a technically solvable problem.  It just may not be
> politically solvable.
> 
> There are issues of security of this whole hierarchy.  ISPs like the
> fact that if the rest of the Internet completely collapsed their IGP
> would remain up and running and their direct customers would still be
> served.  Not even DNS is a vulnerablity for an enterprise using such
> an ISP and resolving their own domain locally or through the ISP.
> 
> By design, the Internet is a collection of more or less autonomous
> networks glued together.  You are proposing adding a very fundamental
> dependency on entities higher up in a hierarchy.  There is probably no
> enterprise of over 100 emplyees willing to dynamically take addresses
> from their provider such that if they went down (for example, due to
> power outage) and found themselves up but isolated from their provider
> they would not have an authoritative source of addresses.  This is
> even more true for providers not wanting dependencies on others.
> 
> Even in a complete mesh, all nodes being equal with no hierarchy at
> all, you could assert that in theory some sort of spanning tree could
> assign numbers and in that way "organize the network".  In practice,
> you don't have any chance of getting the Internet providers to adopt
> it.  My advice is to direct your efforts elsewhere.
> 
> Curtis
> 
> 
> > At Wed, 30 Oct 2002 00:24:22 +0300,
> > Dmitri Krioukov wrote:
> > > 
> > > I perfectly understand Curtis's reply.
> > > It would be quite surprising to know
> > > how anything like this could work on
> > > meshy networks. Some preliminary
> > > calculations based on fundamental
> > > Kleinrock's results on hierarchical
> > > routing are included in:
> > > http://www.krioukov.net/~dima/pro/lulea/lulea-msrw.ppt
> > > --
> > > dima.
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > irtf-rr mailing list
> > > irtf-rr@puck.nether.net
> > > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/irtf-rr
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > irtf-rr mailing list
> > irtf-rr@puck.nether.net
> > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/irtf-rr
> >