references on non-central authority network protocols

Wed Apr 17 20:39:27 UTC 2002

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 at tribalwise.com>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850