[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Are we solving the wrong problem?
Hi Pekka,
El 05/03/2008, a las 6:39, Pekka Nikander escribió:
...
The biggest differences between your thinking and HIP seems to be
that HIP is implemented below TCP, so that it works also for UDP. I
think it matches better with the IP semantics, as a single IP
address is (today) typically associated with a number of co-located
TCP and UDP end-points.
Then there is also work specific to TCP, e.g Christian Huitema's
eTCP (or whatever it was called).
I'm glad to see that more people come to the roughly same
conclusions, independently. :-)
right, but i think that what is missing in all these proposals is to
understand the interaction with congestion control, which may be
critical if they get deployed.
Moreover, understanding how these approaches can help to avoid
congested paths, could actually be a solution to one of the cuases of
the routing scalability problem, since many to the TE tricks and
espcially the updates with more specific that change frequently seem
to be related with trying to move traffic from one path to a different
one, probably avoiding congested parts of the network. If there is a
mechanism that does it automatically for the hosts, then, maybe the
number of more specific announced and especially the highly volatile
ones, will substantially decrease. But, i guess there are many
hypothesis in this sentence, to actually make a strong case at this
point
regards, marcelo
--Pekka Nikander
--
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