Subject: Re: [rrg] Idea for IPv4 addition or extension

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:35:34 EDT

In einer eMail vom 17.04.2010 03:57:17 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

Unfortunately there isn't much new under the sun.  This  appears to be a
combination of geographic addressing (various sources, e.g.  Steve
Deering and Tony Hain) and RFC1955.  Geographic addressing  has
deployability issues -- search for archives of those arguments.   The
problem with mapping based on ASs is that they are the wrong  granularity
for external routing.  They are either too coarse  (different prefixes
within an AS need different treatment) or too  fine.

Scott,
there is a lot new under the sun - from the routing technologyical point of 
 view. In 2003 I really made a significant discovery that extremely 
propelled all  my routing skills. Either me or someone else, who however would 
progress based  on my work, will be able, sooner or later, to prove that P=NP.  
The  practical( i.e. less academical) benefits could be harvested even now, 
but  obviously no one from the RRG is interested in  routing technology that 
is  more advanced than what you can learn at the universities. 
Instead people rather rediscover Steve Deering's metropolitain  routing. 
But just using the geographical coordinates in that way won't do! This  is as 
poor as is ILNP which in indeed  just a remake of PNNI and -  remember you 
created the acronym yourself- of IARP (Inter-domain ATM-network  Routing 
Protocol). In the meantime others have shown quite some negative aspects  of 
such kind of hierarchical routing, more precisely, of such hierarchical  
address-summarization based routing: Stretch 17 !
And I can also add: Istanbul effect (exact city map for the European part  
plus a cut-out for the Eastern part from a road map about whole Asia) ! And  
third: No sensitiveness for a future, entirely mobile network!
What  if                 A L L            users become  mobile ? including 
the home agents and care-of-address servers  ?!!!  ILNP won't be of any help 
at all. 
And: ILNP emphasizes that multi-homing is just a special kind of multipath. 
 Great. But at the same time it prevents 100 % multipath, where there is no 
  panicing about loops  anymore, not even in case of required  crankback.
 
Heiner