|> Yes, but there's a very big difference between you driving your car
|> the way
|> that you want and the way that hop-by-hop forwarding works.
|
|What if the driver could (optionally) select from a set of back roads
|that is limited to those published by the network provider? If the
|driver doesn't want to and/or cannot do this additional navigation
|work, he could follow the nudge of the underlying hop-by-hop mechanism.
|
|In other words, maybe we can build a basic reachability service of
|global scope, and layer on top of that a more advanced service that
|provides enhanced functionality, but where the costs are localized.
That would be a fine thing, but the user has only two ways to express his
desires: one is by injecting routing information, which necessarily can be
overridden. The only other way is by doing a setup protocol.
In the model I'm thinking about, the network (i.e. provider) would publish a set of path options (e.g. a map, list of potential waypoints, set of deflection bits, etc) for the host to consider. The host could then choose from among these options, with the expectation that its choice will be honored by the network in the general case. Otherwise, the network should change the set of options it is publishing. The provider retains control by setting the bounds of the allowable routing policy.