Re: Lost Layer?

you may also like to have a look at this book chapter that covers some of
the trade-offs very well with respect to multihoming and IPv6


"The Design Space of Network Mobility"

http://sigcomm.org/education/ebook/SIGCOMMeBook2013v1_chapter8.pdf



==
Hamed       http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~hamed/


On 14 January 2014 14:51, Matta, Abraham I <[email protected]> wrote:

> It's not only "private" addresses within each scope (layer), it's also
> that addresses identify processes (and not interfaces as IP addresses do.)
> By late binding a process address to a particular interface, one can
> better deal with mobility and multihoming.
>
>
> Each layer also provides transport (flow) services, which can depend on
> lower layers (i.e. a recursive model). Each layer basically implements its
> own control loop over its scope. Functions like addressing, routing, flow
> control, etc. are implemented recursively (http://csr.bu.edu/rina/). In
> the current Internet, the IP layer has a huge scope (range of operation)
> which makes it very hard to control (from control theory, we know how hard
> it is to stabilize a feedback system when the feedback delay is large).
>
> Best,
> ibrahim
>
>
>
>
> >
> >On 1/13/14 12:57 PM, "Steven Blake" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 2014-01-11 at 11:40 +0000, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
> >>
> >>> certainly the authors should have read IEN1 which would have led to a
> >>> much better identifier space (as revived in the ILNP work by ran
> >>> atkinson, 40 years later
> >>> http://ilnp.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/
> >>>
> >>>  cheers
> >>>
> >>>    jon
> >>
> >>Agreed.
> >>
> >>If I understand the slides correctly, they argue that what is missing
> >>are network-scope (e.g., AS-scope) addresses, to be used by
> >>hosts/routers within a domain, restricting the use (e.g.,
> >>routing/forwarding) of Internet-scope addresses to hosts and Internet
> >>gateways (e.g., inter-exchange routers).  Whatever the other merits of
> >>that approach, it won't solve the multihoming scalability problem.
> >>
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>// Steve
> >>
> >
>
>
>