[rrg] Agenda request: Presentation on new host stack architecture

[Christian Vogt]

Heiner,

your proposal is interesting.  But I think it is orthogonal to the new
network protocol stack proposal that I am making.  I don't see how one
would enable or improve the other.

In fact, whereas your proposal changes the routing system, my proposal
is fundamentally host-based.  The way in which my proposal will benefit
the routing system is instead:

- by making the use of provider-allocated addressing in edge networks
   more acceptable, and

- by making (unilateral) IP address translation a more acceptable
   solution for provider-independent addressing in edge networks
   without compromising global routing scalability.

The reason for (1) is that renumbering becomes simpler with the new
network protocol stack since it no longer affects applications/host. The
reason for (2) is that the new network protocol stack makes applications
immune to unilateral IP address translation.

- Christian



On Nov 11, 2008, HeinerHummel at aol.com wrote:

>> are you thinking of forwarding packets based on the destination
>> hostname while the packet is within an edge network?  That could, of
>> course, be an extension to the proposal I am making.
>
>
> Yes. My saying since 45 is of course that there is no reason  to route
> based on worldwide user reachability information dissemination,
> i.e. that this scalability problem can be eliminated completely.
> Provided: Each DFZ router has a consistent view of a well-sparsed
> internet topology, while knowing the geo-locations of all viewed  
> nodes,
> and the geolocation related to the IP packets' destination which  
> should
> be the geolocation of that router toward which forwarding shall/ 
> could be
> done without looking at the destination IP address.
>
> That router is - normally - a router of the service provider at the
> service provider's site. Behind that point routing could either be  
> done
> traditionally, i.e. based on the destination IPv4 resp. IPv6 address  
> or
> based on something else like: e.g. host name or E.164 without DNS
> mapping, or... or...or... And of course also based on geolocation
> information of an intra-domain edge network.
>
>> The proposal
>> right now, however, uses IP addresses for routing; the hostnames are
>> included only in the first packets of a connection in order to sync
>> the two peers.
>
> I know.
>
> Heiner