Re: [RRG] Topology that follows addressing

["Ricardo V. Oliveira" <rveloso@cs.ucla.edu>]

Hi,

Sorry for jumping in the middle of the thread

> [It seems that I can't reasonably quote anything from your message  
> that shows the core idea.]
>
> I understand this to be geographic routing, which goes even further  
> than the geographic aggregation that is pretty much rejected out of  
> hand whenever it comes up within the IETF (which is every couple of  
> years or so).
Not sure what "geographic aggregation" you're referring to, but here  
is one that seems to work and avoids the pitfalls you mentioned bellow:
http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~rveloso/papers/giro.pdf

Comments are appreciated.
Thanks,

--Ricardo



> Unless I'm mistaken, the idea is that geographic proximity equals  
> topological proximity. I'm afraid that can't work in a wired  
> network. If I'm in Holland I'm closer to Scotland than when I'm in  
> Belgium. But if I want to travel to Scotland through the channel  
> tunnel, I need to go through Belgium. So I need to get farther  
> geographically to get closer topologically.
>
> The way to solve this would be to lift the geo/topo alignment  
> requirement as soon as you reach a certain zoom level. But then  
> there's the traditional argument against geographic aggregation:  
> how do you avoid ISPs having to carry traffic for free? In other  
> words: who announces the aggregates to the rest of the world?
>
> Are you familiar with Tony Hain's draft about geographic addressing?
>
> --
> 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


--
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