1. November 2005IETF 64 - ECRIT Impact of architecture on requirements draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-mapping-arch Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University hgs@cs.columbia.edu

2. November 2005IETF 64 - ECRIT 1’ summary Seekers –want information Resolvers –know >= 1 forest guide (but not trees) Forest guides (many) –know trees Trees (>= 1) –have authoritative data for particular regions

3. November 2005IETF 64 - ECRIT Multiple actors End users: –just want mappings (EMA: “seeker”) –may only be connected occasionally –use different ISPs and VSPs Internet service providers –no inherent interest in emergency services –but want to make service reliable for their users –  EMA: resolver Emergency service authorities –(only they) know authoritative data about their jurisdiction –only responsible for small geographic subset of the world –may not be interested in world at large –hierarchically structured (e.g., country, region, county, city) –  EMA: authoritative servers in tree Mapping service providers –don’t have (direct) authoritative data –but can be (politically) neutral –can detect colliding claims between different trees –  EMA: forest guides EMA: draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-mapping-arch

4. November 2005IETF 64 - ECRIT Multiple actors High-level architecture requirement: accommodate competing and non-cooperative parties –see also “Tussle in Cyberspace”, by David D. Clark, John Wroclawski, Karen R. Sollins, Robert Braden Division on previous slide just an example –but seems probable –some functions could be collapsed into one box or omitted in particular deployments Different actors have different skills and interests –some may be competing with each other ISPs, VSPs, mapping providers –limited mutual trust or limited ability to determine trustworthy parties –national politics (“Oceania is not talking to Eurasia”)  need neutral parties –there may not be a political root organization see ICANN difficulties

5. November 2005IETF 64 - ECRIT Requirements? End user must be able to perform mapping if mapping functionality is offered by VSP (or other third party), not ISP –this does not preclude ISP participation! Mapping nodes must be able to refer clients to a more appropriate node –that node may be operated by some other entity Different resolution hierarchies must be able to co-exist –for different services & different regions