[46926] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: references on non-central authority network protocols
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Crocker)
Wed Apr 17 16:44:04 2002
Message-Id: <5.1.1.2.2.20020417133441.01acd110@127.0.0.1>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:39:27 -0700
To: "Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk@cisco.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Cc: "Scott A Crosby" <crosby@qwes.math.cmu.edu>,
"Patrick Thomas" <root@utility.clubscholarship.com>,
<nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <00c101c1e3f4$d05ebe80$e1876540@amer.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 03:40 PM 4/14/2002 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>No, the trick is for a distributed algorithm to generate a non-trivial
>number of unique values for a (short) fixed-length field.
This line of suggestion indicates a goal of identification, rather than
addressing.
Addressing is supposed to have relevance to the infrastructure topology, so
that it indicates a place within the topology.
As to the larger goal of non-centralized address assignment, the usual
distinction is between administrative method, versus basis of assignment
authority.
Distributed (non-centralized) administration is not very difficult. As
noted, the RIRs are a version of that.
Independent assignment (multiple authorities) has not been achieved so
far. Activities that appear to have this feature actually rely on a
logical central authority, with operational coordination among the
participants. The central authority in these cases is either some sort of
statute or the cooperative enforcement of the participation community.
d/
----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dave@tribalwise.com>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850
