Reply to post: Re: There Might Be An Alternative

Stern Vint Cerf blasts techies for lackluster worldwide IPv6 adoption

AbeChen

Re: There Might Be An Alternative

Hi, Charles9:

0) It seems that you are diverting to other topics.

1) "it does NOTHING to the routing table issue ": What EzIP does is to create a huge public sub-Internet (up to 256M extension addresses) under each current public IPv4 address. As long as the party assigning these "extension numbers" refrains from giving them to subscribers located all over the world, there is no routing table expansion to worry about, but only the local new routing table to maintain by whoever responsible for that sub-Internet.

2) " Sure, the telephone exchanges have to deal with this now, but their problem isn't of the same scale. Instead of millions of requests an hour, it's per minute. ": What I will say below may sound like out of sync. But, it could illustrate the concept. It appears that you likely have not being in a telephony local CO (Central Office). In the old days, a CO in US served 10K subscribers max per unit (Each group of the last four digits was assigned a EXChange number which was the fifth and up numbers) because the size of electro-mechanical (step-by-step) switching components. When one walked into one of such equipment room, it sounded like a tin-roofed shack in a thunderstorm! That would give you some idea how much calls were going through and why the telcos were making so much money. Nowadays, an ESS (Electronic Switching System) room just got humming sounds which come from sealed miniature relays and ventilation equipment. One of the "scale" difference that you are inferring to is probably because a voice call needs only one setup, but each packet needs be routed individually. On the other hand, they are by design. That is, can per packet routing be more efficient, say by per session basis?

3) "The end result is increased latency all throughout the Internet, multiplied by each hop the packets have to make. ": The number of hops can be controlled if the IP addresses were assigned hierarchically by geophysical locations of the subscriber which is the rule that PSTN followed. The switching hierarchy (equivalent to Internet's Core Routers) takes advantage of this to limit the maximum number of trunks (equivalent to Internet's hops) to only 5 around the whole US (and at most one more for international calls). In fact, many calls are connected by fewer trunks through the use of direct trunks between COs with high traffic. For example, between SFO and NYC and many other similar major cities around USA have direct optical fiber trunks. As a matter of the fact, I believe Internet has similar facilities.

4) This leads to one of my long time puzzlement that you may be kind enough to explain. That is, since IP addresses in the IP packet header do not indicate the physical locations of the sender and receiver, how does a packet get routed through the Internet? I begin to look into Autonomous Systems (AS) that mentioned here and there. They seem to be the actual equipment doing the routing. But, I was shocked to find that their numbering system appears to use also 32 bits just like IPv4! Could you briefly describe how all these play together to deliver an IP packet that does not have the destination information to a human's eye? Thanks.

Abe (2018-08-22 20:07)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019