|
In einer eMail vom 04.12.2007 01:37:18 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
tli@cisco.com:
I should remind folks that our 'problem' is a matter of research, not This is why my emails and proposal have been addressed to
RRG/IRTF.
Imho, LISP should go the usual way: have IETF-BOFs, initiate a LISP WG
inside IETF.
IRTF stands for research however.
Hence RRG should not ask in the first place about the backward
compatability, instead AFTER having determined, independendly, what is the best
solution.
So far I did dispose all about the NIRA-concept which :
- eliminates the scalability problem: it reduces the routing table size
immensely. It stops the routing churn:
In case any representative node went down the node the nearest among all
nodes being BoundTo the failing node would take care if there were any "taking
care on behalf of"-problems. A new update to the outside is only appropriate, if
the node who is in charge of some other has a distance > xyz to that failing
node.
- enables faster packet forwarding by factor 20 (according to
Tony).
- only needs the avaibility of longitude/latitude of the packet
destination in one way or the other
(parameter, outer header,...) but no CONS and no cumbersome
config data.
- by knowing the (sparsed) internet topology you can do QoS/policy routing
much better than without.
The goal should be not only as well as inside an OSPF-network but
even better (OSPF only knows to deal
with Dijkstra)
- it enables to deal with the multihoming problem in a new way, as
well as with traffic balancing issues.
I have been asked for providing a draft about this concept by several
people.Where are their comments?
Heiner
|