[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Toward Compact Interdomain Routing [Re: [RRG] recent progress in routing research]
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Dmitri Krioukov wrote:
you're right, of course, but the more you're right,
the better it is for the scalability argument in the
paper, since finer-than-AS routing control can only
*add* to the amount of state the IDR should keep.
Agreed. While I'd personally hope that one would up-level the current
topologies to routing by the AS number alone, it doesn't seem to be
the case now, by far (this goes back to the evolution vs revolution
argument). But as you say, this makes only the fact more convincing
that scalability benefits w/ AS-level abstraction may not be
significant.
2) your comment #2:
i'm not sure what you mean. do you mean this other 'real'
topology from the previous point? we simply point out that
for the *real AS-level* topology, the routing table size
of the TZ scheme is ~50 entries of ~log(n) bits each, which
means that the average DFZ routing table size is below 100
bytes per node (that's why this type of routing is called
compact :)
Either would be interesting. If the size of table is something like
50 entries, it should be something folks could examine (much better
than the current topology of 10,000+ entries..) and understand better.
I for one certainly would be interested in seeing what it would look
like (also in comparison with the current routing table).
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg