Re: [RRG] ALT's strong aggregation often leads to *very* long paths

[jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)]

    > From: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>

    > I think CONS and ALT are driven by a common goal - to build a new
    > network of routers in which aggregation is achieved to a very high
    > degree.

This doesn't match my understanding of CONS at all. CONS nodes are not
routers, any more than nodes in the DNS hierarchy are routers. CONS is just a
resolution hierarchy, just like DNS; at a very high level, the only
difference between DNS and CONS is that DNS maps from DNS names to A/etc
records, whereas CONS maps from IDs to RLOCs.

The only thing I've heard of that is not this way is that IIRC there has been
some discussion of using the CONS resolution hierarchy to forward *data*
packets during the period when the ITR doesn't have the appropriate ID->RLOC
mapping for a particular destination. This is analogous to having the DNS
hierarchy forward data packets while the host is waiting to get the
DNS->IP_address mapping.

This is a potential optimization, and not an architectural fundamental to
CONS; a number of other approaches have been suggested for the 'how to handle
data packets while the ITR it waiting for the ID->RLOC mapping' issue, ones
that do not involve the CONS hierarchy in handling such data packets.


    > I had too much difficulty understanding how CONS would work anyway.

CONS is conceptually fairly simple; think DNS, but replace "DNS names" with
"IDs" and "A/etc records" with "RLOCs". The fine details differ a fair
amount, for a long list of reasons having to do with the operational
environment and requirements, etc, but that's the broad-stroke picture.

	Noel


--
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