[rrg] hostname oriented stack

[Christian Vogt]

Bill,

I like your breakdown.  Just note that it looks a bit like we would
re-design the entire Internet. :-)  In fact, the changes incurred by a
hostname-oriented host stack architecture are more moderate.  They do
not affect routing, addressing, or name resolution.  Only the host stack
and applications will change in backwards-compatible manner.

- Christian



On Nov 17, 2008, William Herrin wrote:

> Some incomplete thoughts... If we wanted to build a hostname-oriented
> stack, how do the components divide up?
>
> Off the top of my head, the components look like:
>
> 1. Layer-3 protocol to move packets in which the "addresses" carry
> -only- locator semantics. Could possibly use IPv6 here?
>
> 2. Locator assignment, reassignment and routing protocol (LARRP) to
> recursively assign locator prefixes (from a prefix for the entire
> network down to a single locator for a host), reassign them when the
> routing topology changes and and keep track of which prefixes map to
> which layer-2 destinations from which to build a FIB.
>
> 3. Core routing protocol (CRP) to handle routing between entities
> which are not assigning addresses to each other. Maybe rolls up into
> LARRP, maybe not. CRP used anywhere peering happens today.
>
> 4. Service Name Resolution Protocol (SNaRP) - so that initiators can
> find the LOCs for their destinations. No real value in keeping the
> concept of a "host" at the protocol level. Let that be handled with
> naming conventions instead. A the protocol level you just care about
> finding a service, such as "http at www.irtf.org."
>
> 5. Connection-oriented protocol (COP) - replaces TCP. Handles error
> correction and LOC changes. API is: listen(servicename) and
> connect(servicename), send, receive
>
> 6. Connection-less protocol (CLeP) - replaces UDP. API is
> listen(servicename), open(servicename), send and receive. Open just
> establishes a send/recv binding on the local machine; it doesn't
> generate any network traffic.
>
> Comments? Criticism? Any other big block components of a
> hostname-oriented protocol stack? Should any of these blocks be broken
> up differently?
>
> -Bill