[rr-fs] names vs. addresses

[Kevin Fall]

>
> From:  "Joel M. Halpern" <joel at stevecrocker.com>
> To:    "Dmitri Krioukov" <dima at caida.org>, <rr-fs at caida.org>
> cc:    rrg at psg.com
> Subject: Re: [rr-fs] names vs. addresses
> Date:  Fri, 07 Oct 2005 23:45:30 EDT
>
> ...
>
> While that is interesting, most folks looking at that problem tend instead 
> to look at as a matter of layering.  That is, on one level the 
> communication is in terms of topologically insensitive names (identities), 
> and at another layer communication is in terms of toplogically sensitive 
> names (addresses).
> Admittedly, this is based on the historically grounded assumption that 
> routing on the basis of topologically sensitive names is more 
> effective.  But that does still seem to be a reasonable assumption.
> some of this is explored in the output of the Name Space Resrach Group.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel

I think this assumption that is probably the most important one
to be questioned/investigated at this point in time.

There is certainly some evidence to suggest that routing
based on topologically insensitive names is possible and
reasonably efficient.  That concept has not permeated IETF
very much.

The evidence, in my mind, is related to results in the
DHT/overlay community and also the compact routing work.  The overlay 'evidence'
however has always troubled me some, because it generally constructs
arbitrary graphs in a 'convenient' way whereas the compact routing
work does not.  Also, these communities define the term
'stretch' in different ways-- overlay/DHT people tend to define
it in terms of delay and CR people define it in terms of
hop count ratios.  The work is cut out for us..

as the coffee takes effect...
- K

> 
> At 08:43 PM 10/7/2005, Dmitri Krioukov wrote:
> >several people, including vint cerf at the last sigcomm,
> >talk about differentiating between node names (or IDs)
> >and node addresses having some topological sense. i'd
> >like to emphasize that, at least formally, this distinction
> >is very well understood, formalized, and researched. it
> >is directly related to what's called name-independent
> >routing (working with node "names") vs. name-dependent
> >routing (working with node "addresses").
> >
> >indeed, by definition (http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.NI/0508021),
> >name-dependent routing embeds some topological information
> >in node labels which thus cannot be arbitrary, while routing
> >that can work on the graphs with arbitrary node labels is
> >called name-independent. thus, networking terms like "node
> >name" or "node ID" essentially refers to the name-independent
> >case, while the term "node address" usually implies a
> >topologically informative node label, i.e., the name-dependent
> >case.
> >
> >even finer classification is considered in http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DC/990300
9
> >which differentiates the name-dependent case into the two
> >subcases: node label set is 1...n (case \beta) or completely
> >arbitrary (case \gamma).
> >--
> >dima.
> >http://www.caida.org/~dima/
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >rr-fs mailing list
> >rr-fs at caida.org
> >http://rommie.caida.org/mailman/listinfo/rr-fs
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rr-fs mailing list
> rr-fs at caida.org
> http://rommie.caida.org/mailman/listinfo/rr-fs