Philip, thanks for your email.
See my comments inside whether your understand does or does not comply with
what I was writing.
Heiner
In einer eMail vom 09.11.2007 16:56:27 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
philip.eardley@bt.com:
No. The geographical location is only an attribute. Within the same
geographical area there are, in general, multiple routers which show up
at some more upper map. You might object, well, a single particularly
elected router shall represent let's say a fifth of all router's from
California. What if that one goes down?
Well, all other routers which are closer to this one than to any other
representative router from California, would continue to "stick to it".
Sometimes ugly situations like such one are helpful to demonstrate the
bottom line:
If I am sending from Munich, Germany, a postal letter to someone in
Sausolito, who however has moved to a different location, it is perfectly fine -
in my view - that this letter is first of all sent to some postal office in
Sausolito rather. For me, it is acceptable that such a letter has to be sent
back all the long way because I believe, it makes no sense, that if someone
relocates, all postal offices in the world should be informed. Also, in that
case we wouldn't have got the lovely Elvis song RETURN TO SENDER :-)
For sure, because as soon as some concept is established people
are smart enough to enhance it :-)
Also: Imagine, that your OSPF routers would also have these geo-attributes!
You may try to get closest to the destination inside your OSPF network,
e.g.
How about multiple routes with even different hierarchical
links towards the egress?!
All these things would seem to me to
make it more problematic to enforce ‘topology must follow geography’. in the
context of a global network, would it mean there was only one
network?
Maybe it is better to put this law aside again, there is no extra value in
following this or that. The proposed concept was not developed based on this
law.
We can cross that bridge when we have arrived there.
Heiner
|