North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: references on non-central authority network protocols
At 03:40 PM 4/14/2002 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
This line of suggestion indicates a goal of identification, rather than addressing.No, the trick is for a distributed algorithm to generate a non-trivial number of unique values for a (short) fixed-length field.
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.
Dave Crocker <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850