OK, I understand.
But what kind of solutions A and B do you have in mind that have a 100 %
stretch difference ?
Heiner
In einer eMail vom 25.04.2007 16:09:20 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
ksriram@nist.gov:
Increased path length is a trade-off for reduced table size.
So any
proposed solution would be expected to have
a stretch (or path inflation)
greater than 100% (relative to the SP case).
But if Solution A has 200%
stretch while Solution B has 300% stretch,
while each provides the same
reduction in table size under the same
set of conditions (e.g., topology,
policy, etc.), then A would be considered
to have better routing quality
in terms of this trade-off.
Sriram
At 06:31 PM 4/24/2007, HeinerHummel@aol.com wrote:
My Suggestion wrt.
3.1:
Provide an architecture which "abolishes the scalability
problem"
Then you have no problems with catering for 3.2 and
3.3.
I mentioned it in Prague: What shall this
stretch-philosophy be all about?
Is it to discredit particular solutions
? What is the gain of it ?
Obviously, it cannot discredit a detour per
se. The path of a detour is longer than the shortest path -this is
well-known by everybody and not a
secret.
Heiner
|