Re: [RRG] Agenda changes

[Olivier Bonaventure <Bonaventure@info.ucl.ac.be>]

Dmitri,

> i briefly looked through some points in some presentations for prague,
> including olivier's.
> 
> olivier, i don't understand section 3.3 in your
> http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~obo/papers/rrg.pdf where you say
> that ASs need not necessarily be visible in interdomain routing,
> and refer to HLP[32] as an alternative, but HLP proposes quite
> opposite, routing on AS numbers as a starting point. so i wonder
> what exactly you mean there? in fact, what if not ASs should be
> visible in interdomain routing?

The reference to HLP was not a way to indicate that HLP is working in
that way, it was meant to indicate that HLP had already proposed to
reduce the amount of AS level information. In HLP, there are roughly two
types of interconnections :
- customer provider links
- shared cost peering links

on customer-provider links, HLP behaves as a link state protocol and
routing is done on a per AS basis. on shared cost peering links, the AS
attached to the link will advertise a summarized AS path (containing
itself and the AS below its hierarchy). For example, if we consider the
topology below :

A ======== Z
|
B--D
|
C

A will advertise to Z that it can reach B, C and D but will not tell to
Z that D and C are "below" B in the hierarchy. With a localtor/id split
and if we manage to allocate locators automatically and hierarchically,
it should be possible for A to only advertise to Z the aggregated prefix
 locator containing its locators and the locators that it assigned to B,
D and C. In this case, no AS information would be advertised to Z.


Olivier


--
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