Re: [RRG] Topology that follows addressing

Topology aggregation, geographical aggregation, AS aggregation:

While I am about to start writing a draft I am aware that using these terms might generate even more confusion than clarity. The same applies to the term "hierarchy". Because:

The ultimate NIRA-goal is that each router aquires the view of a flat topology of the entire internet, however such sparsed, that it comprises only a reasonable number of nodes and links (500 or 1000 nodes and e.g. twice or three times this number of links). The more remote the contained links, the looser they become.

Call this link aggregation, or better don't say so at all. Nodes: there is no node aggregation or better said reachability info aggregation for any more remote node. Only for nodes in the near proximity, yes, reachability info aggregation is required to be disseminated just within the lowest-level geo-patch vicinity.

For reaching this goal it still takes some hierarchically organized routing protocol procedural steps :-)

Terminology should help, not confuse, us.

Heiner

In einer eMail vom 22.11.2007 18:04:43 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt rveloso@CS.UCLA.EDU:

Thanks for the comments

> Ok:
>
> - using imperial measurements in a research paper, is that allowed??
yes

> - as is remarked at the end of the paper, you don't need to encode
> geography into the address for BGP decision making
yes, each operator uses this info in BGP decision as they wish

>
> - now that AS numbers are 32 bits, something like this would
> probably use too much address space
not in a ipv6 world

> - you're not aggregating on geography, but on AS. As such, a 1:4
> reduction is quite poor because the number of prefixes per AS is
> upwards of 1:8
I'm doing both. Per AS is termed "topological aggregation", while per
geography is "geographical aggregation" .From the 75% reduction, 40%
are topological aggregates and the rest some form of geographical
aggregation. Note that this aggregation preserves AS path diversity,
therefore it's bellow the ratio #ASes/#prefixes.

Thanks,

--Ricardo

--
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

In einer eMail vom 22.11.2007 18:04:43 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt rveloso@CS.UCLA.EDU:

Thanks for the comments

> Ok:
>
> - using imperial measurements in a research paper, is that allowed??
yes

> - as is remarked at the end of the paper, you don't need to encode
> geography into the address for BGP decision making
yes, each operator uses this info in BGP decision as they wish

>
> - now that AS numbers are 32 bits, something like this would
> probably use too much address space
not in a ipv6 world

> - you're not aggregating on geography, but on AS. As such, a 1:4
> reduction is quite poor because the number of prefixes per AS is
> upwards of 1:8
I'm doing both. Per AS is termed "topological aggregation", while per
geography is "geographical aggregation" .From the 75% reduction, 40%
are topological aggregates and the rest some form of geographical
aggregation. Note that this aggregation preserves AS path diversity,
therefore it's bellow the ratio #ASes/#prefixes.

Thanks,

--Ricardo

--
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