Re: [RRG] Comments on the Design Goals I-D

[Tony Li <tli@cisco.com>]

On Apr 25, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Ricardo V. Oliveira wrote:

> > Increased path length is a trade-off for reduced table size.
> This is not necessarily true. Depending on the address scheme and  
> route aggregation scheme, you can achieve shorter paths (as  
> measured by geographic distance) and smaller routing tables at the  
> same time.


Ricardo,

Can you please say more?  It's a long held tenet that abstraction is  
necessary for scalability and that abstraction results in sub- 
optimality.  Routing and addressing architectures that are both  
scalable and optimal would be of great interest.  Everyone would like  
to have their cake and eat it too...  ;-)

Regards,
Tony

--
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