[e2e] Lost Layer?
hamed at eecs.qmul.ac.uk
Tue Jan 14 07:29:42 PST 2014
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"
On 14 January 2014 14:51, Matta, Abraham I <matta at bu.edu> 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).
> >On 1/13/14 12:57 PM, "Steven Blake" <slblake at petri-meat.com> 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
> >>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.
> >>// Steve
More information about the end2end-interest