diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | content/en/docs/Concepts/ouroboros-model.md | 43 |
1 files changed, 40 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/content/en/docs/Concepts/ouroboros-model.md b/content/en/docs/Concepts/ouroboros-model.md index 50da266..362fd81 100644 --- a/content/en/docs/Concepts/ouroboros-model.md +++ b/content/en/docs/Concepts/ouroboros-model.md @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ A first approach is to use a coordinate space for the names of the forwarding elements. For instance, if we use the GPS coordinates of the machine in which they reside as a name, then we can apply some basic geometry to _calculate_ the distances based on this name -oexanly. This simple GPS example has pitfalls, but it has been proven +only. This simple GPS example has pitfalls, but it has been proven that any connected finite graph has a greedy embedding in the hyperbolic plane. The obvious benefit of such so-called _geometric routing_ approaches is that they don't require any dissemination of @@ -480,7 +480,33 @@ of an overlaying unicast layer, and how to disseminate routes in that overlay unicast layer is an interesting topic that mandates more study[^13]. -[UNDER CONSTRUCTION] +### Do we really need routing at a global scale? + +An interesting question to ask, is whether we need to be able to scale +a layer to the scale of the planet, or -- some day -- the solar +system, or even the universe? IPv6 was the winning technology to deal +with the anticapted problem of IPv4 address exhaustion. But can we +build an Internet that doesn't require all possible end users to share +the same network (layer)? + +My answer is not proven and therefore not conclusive, but I think yes, +any public Internet -- where it is possible for any end-user to reach +any application at scale -- will always need at least one (unicast) +layer that spans most of the systems on the network and thus a global +address space. In the current Internet, applications are identified by +an IP address and port, and the Domain Name System (DNS) maps the host +name to an IP address (or a set of IP addresses). In any general +Internetwork, if applications were in private networks, we would need +a system to find the (private network, node name in private network) +for some application, and every end-host would need to reach that +system, which -- unless I am missing something big -- means that +system will need a global address space[^14]. + +### Dealing with limited link capacity + + + +[Under construction] [^1]: In the paper we call these elements _data transfer protocol machines_, but I think this terminology is clearer. @@ -584,4 +610,15 @@ study[^13]. routing information can be marked with a single bit. This is only true in the limited case that there is only one "gateway" node in the routing area. In the general case, path information - will be needed to determine which gateway to use.
\ No newline at end of file + will be needed to determine which gateway to use. +[^14]:A [paper on RINA](http://rina.tssg.org/docs/CAMAD-final.pdf) that + claims that a global address space is not needed, seems to prove the + exact opposite of that claim. The resolution system, called the + Inter-DIF Directory (IDD) -- it does more than just finding the + destination network -- -- is present on every system and has internal + forwarding rules to route requests between its node. If that is not a + global address space, then I am Mickey Mouse; the addresses inside the + IDD are just based on strings instead of numbers. The IDD houses a + unicast layer with a global address space. While the IDD is techically + not a DIF, the DIF-DAF distinction is + [severely flawed](https://ouroboros.rocks/blog/2021/03/20/how-does-ouroboros-relate-to-rina-the-recursive-internetwork-architecture/#ouroboros-diverges-from-rina).
\ No newline at end of file |