[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Topology that follows addressing
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