1 / 12

Impacts of routing-scalability-related requirements for naming/addressing separation

Impacts of routing-scalability-related requirements for naming/addressing separation. Tony Li 3/2/09. Requirement: Scalability. Overhead: ~O(sqrt(# hosts)) Need namespace w/ ‘locator’ functionality Topologically sensitive namespace Need some abstraction mechanism

gamma
Download Presentation

Impacts of routing-scalability-related requirements for naming/addressing separation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impacts of routing-scalability-related requirements fornaming/addressing separation Tony Li 3/2/09

  2. Requirement: Scalability • Overhead: ~O(sqrt(# hosts)) • Need namespace w/ ‘locator’ functionality • Topologically sensitive namespace • Need some abstraction mechanism • Topological aggregation only known workable approach • Geographic aggregation has problems

  3. Requirement: No renumbering • Topological changes should have O(1) manual overhead • Not a function of site size • Not a function of number of other connections • Changes must be local to the administrators of the site • Locators are not constants

  4. Requirement: Multi-homing • Hosts need to be able to be multi-homed • Multiple interfaces per host and/or • Multiple ISPs per site • Multi-homing with global information violates scalability • Hosts need multiple locators • Non-requirement: multi-path

  5. Non-Requirement: Mobility • Mobility is dynamic multi-homing • Some level of dynamics can’t be supported • No special support required, slow mobility should leverage our results • Highly dynamic mobility may also need other mechanisms • Different mechanisms for different time scales

  6. Implication: Mapping • There needs to be a mapping function to determine current locators • Needs to be scalable and dynamic • Probably a hybrid of both ‘push’ and ‘pull’ models • Push for latency sensitivity • Pull for scalability

  7. Other requirements • Must be incrementally deployable • New architectural elements should be first-class citizens • Stretch shouldn’t get much worse • Security should get better • Basic good design [RFC 1958]

  8. Other practical implications on namespaces

  9. IPv4 • Lacks the ability to name a host • Remedy: added loopback interfaces • Use case: IBGP, router ID’s

  10. CLNP • Architected to name hosts (system id) • Insufficiently specific, need interface naming • Remedy: Added interface addressing • Use case: hosts with multiple interfaces at wildly different rates (e.g. GigE & WiFi)

  11. Endpoint Interface Host Subnet Area Site AS RIR area Implication: Need namespace(s) for everything • One or more namespaces • Advantages & disadvantages depending on namespace boundaries • Blurry semantics?

  12. Observation • Having a single syntax for naming is helpful • Can be a purely syntactic solution • 10/8, 10.1/16, 10.1.2/24, 10.1.2.0/192, 10.1.2.3/32 • Similar namespaces: URL, Unix filesystem (sic)

More Related