[e2e] Overly Overlay; Peer to peer is commonplace

[Douglas Otis]

As wireless already employs a number of methods to cope with an evolving
topology, I was wondering if the use of SCTP's remote naming feature used
together with TCP tunneling techniques would not provide a reasonable
solution.  It could do a number of things.  It would add the ability of the
remote end to define a name space independent of DNS, it would also allow
techniques that employ multi-homing, and improve security.

Doug

> At 06:00 PM 1/7/2002 -0800, Jim Gettys wrote:
> >I do question the claim that there will be many more nodes of the
> >wireless/nomadic kind than fixed, unless I'm missing something.
> >Even if wireless becomes ubiquitous to replace alot of short
> cables, there
> >is no reason I can see that this needs to contribute to the
> global routing
> >problem...  Am I missing something?
>
> This depends on your view about how many nomadic devices there
> will be, how
> far they will move as they travel around, and where the cost of
> re-routing
> will be borne as they travel.
>
> I think potentially nomadic devices will outnumber static ones - so every
> endpoint should be assumed movable.
>
> They may or may not move often, and they may or may not move far
> when they
> are moved.
>
> Now the end-to-end argument would argue that a global backbone cannot
> provide the nomadic routing function, and should provide something useful
> and simple instead, upon which a variety of nomadic routing functions can
> be based.  (I note that the same argument, however, argues that
> the global
> backbone should move as much routing function to the endpoints as
> possible
> - but ideas like source routing are disparaged despite their better fit).
>
> So the essential question is: what is a sensible base routing function in
> the global backbones that does not preclude a range of potentially
> effective and efficient choices in nomadic devices, and in
> particular what
> kind of addresses should it provide for specifying routes.
>
> It seems to me that this requires untangling some issues lumped
> together in
> the current IP (v4 or v6) hierarchical addresses.
>
> Certainly the current practice of IP address assignment does not
> standardize effectively how to solve the following typical problem:
>
> Imagine I have a two part device, consisting of an interface Int and a
> based unit Bas.   I introduce them to each other through some
> means so that
> they know each other and can communicate locally using (say) 802.11.
>
> I then transport Int with me in my suitcase to a hotel.  I take
> it out and
> start using it, perhaps on a local 802.11 net.   How does it find
> Bas, and
> how does Bas find it?
>
> Then my friend picks up Bas (which may have a camera in it, perhaps) and
> transports it to a third location.  How do Bas and Int maintain
> their linkage?
>
> While I'm gone, I ask my landlord to sublet my apartment and put all my
> gear in storage.  I hope that unrelated set of activities doesn't
> interfere
> with Bas & Int.
>
> DNS is really inapplicable for hordes of 2 part devices like this (DNS
> servers have poor time constants and cost money).
>
> It also seems inappropriate for nomadic relationships to depend on fixed
> rendezvous points that introduce unnecessary points of failure.
>
>
>
>
> - David
> --------------------------------------------
> WWW Page: http://www.reed.com/dpr.html
>
>
>