Routing wars pending?

Vadim Antonov avg at
Wed Nov 15 23:37:33 UTC 1995

Silly.  We already *do have two namespaces*.  One is EIDs in form
of FQDNs.  They are portable.  Another is IPv4 addresses which aren't.

How about fixing the real problem -- i.e. making renumbering easy
and removing all hardwired addresses from the software? (And, yes,
fixing DNS).

The magic-cookie EID scheme is nothing more than more complexity to work
around the broken implementations. That extra level of indirection
is patently useless otherwise.  Even funnier, implementation of magic
cookie EIDs requires changes in exactly the same pieces of software
which need to be changed to repair existing two-level scheme.

Note that fixing DNS (and you *have* to do that anyway if you want
to use intermediate EIDs) is a lot easier than replacing routers,
and does not introduce compatibility problems at the transport level.

Sorry, nobody managed to make any reasonable case pro magic-cookie EIDs
as yet.  The best rationale i've heard was from Noel who said that
his "architect's sense" tells him so.  Funny thing, a surgeon i know
was at loss when i asked him about this function of organism, should be
a new discovery in medicine.


In regards to:

>(Tim Bass)
>    Technically, the aggregation advocates were correct.  Socially and
>    politically, aggregation on a global cooperative scale has problems.
>Which is why we need *two* namespaces: one for the routing to do what
>mathematics forces it to, and one for the humans to be able to dork with.

This idea has been around *long* enough. When do we separate the name
spaces? How about along with the IPng transition?


More information about the NANOG mailing list