[e2e] Overly Overlay; Peer to peer is commonplace

[David P. Reed]

At 05:48 PM 12/31/2001 -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
>In other words, "I do not say you cannot have names which do not reflect
>topology; only that the routing calculations cannot use those names."

I meant what I said, which does not contradict what you say in the 
least.  Though you apparently read it that way, I was not arguing for some 
kind of naive "routing based on GUID" scheme.  In fact I was merely arguing 
against the idea that hierarchical assignment of stable topological routing 
IDs is somehow "the right answer" for the evolution of the future Internet.

To amplify my own thoughts in this area:  topology is what routing is 
about, and routing calculations need names that reflect topological 
information.

However it is a deep mistake to assume that the proper model for the 
ultimate Internet is dominated by a fixed and unchanging graph of links and 
nodes.

That's like saying that when MacAdam around 1815 invented the hard-paved 
road (read "twisted pair" or "fiber"), that all human transportation could 
be reduced to graphs of "road-like" links connecting intersections.  It was 
a useful abstraction, but airplanes, helicopters, and off-road-vehicles 
would be stunted in their capabilities if we forced them to live in that 
abstraction.

Wireless networks, especially densely scaled mobile wireless networks, do 
not behave like "wires without wires" or "fibers without fibers".  Topology 
is not naturally hierarchical in its interconnection, for example.  So 
"hierarchically derived" topological addresses are just plain wrong.  More 
relevant, though again as naive as GUID-based routing, is geotemporal routing.

- David
--------------------------------------------
WWW Page: http://www.reed.com/dpr.html