In einer eMail vom 27.11.2007 20:54:53 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
tli@cisco.com:
I think I have explained this: At the event that an IP packet shall be
forwarded, the first (like the following) inside some geopatch realizes
that its own as well as the packet's destination have the same
longitude/latitude and therefore the next hop is determined based on the
recognized destination node which has a best suitable reachability info.
And I think I have explained the routing protocol. Maybe I should write
more about the recursion.
the receiving node, who else ? but maybe I do not understand the
question.
Permanent partition ( I placed just a few line to show that I am aware of
this problem which is certainly for further study). Maybe it should be requested
that at least one representative node must also show up in the next higher level
map. Then any node of one particular partition will learn via the next
upper level map that there are more such representative nodes than
disposed/contributed by this partition. Hence the partition is detected. I am
sure that there are several ways to treat this problem (partition id?, partition
bridging area,...
I am optimistic. When we started PNNI we had much less available.
COMMENT: At first it takes knowledge about shortest path routing. Then we
can come up with provider constraints and assign QOS/policy attributes to
the loose links.
I am not sure I understand your questions. Maybe I should write more about
the adjacency of two different nxm-square-degree geo-patches.
Maybe this helps to avoid wrong understanding: In the past Germany
conquered parts of France, and vice versa France conquered parts of
Germany. But that did not change the shortest path between Paris and Berlin at
all.
See COMMENT above. I assume, EBGP hops only won't deliver the packet
either, will they? Honestly, if you have a viewed topology (nicely sparsed to
become scalable), you can do better policies and TE than by just having AS-path
strings, right?
Heiner |