In einer eMail vom 21.03.2008 01:54:56 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com:
> quote from draft-carpenter-idloc-map-cons-01.txt: 10 millions, 100 millions and even billions - these figures wouldn't
frighten me because the only right solution is the one that scales
logarithmically. My solution would not only shrink the table size
and update churn, but consequently also the work load per router.
Hence it could take advantage of the idle time, e.g. by pursueing
similar goals like the rtgwg wrt. to multipath and detours.
Quote------------
> Doesn't the issue persist independent of the characteristics based
on
> which a path gets selected? Independent of *how* a path gets selected, > you need to decide *who* selects it (or who selects which part of it). Well, that's true of course. But nothing can change the fact that the originating host chooses the source address and destination address that the packet starts out with, and all subsequent choices depend on that. Brian End of quote ----------------- Example: Be that the destination is "just behind the globe". So you may
have a West-route, a North-, East- and South-route. The ingress may
take a choice and yes, all subsequent choices may not only depend on that but
should also COMPLY with that !!!! Sure, some respective assignment may have
to be conveyed, but first of all be enabled ! Multihoming ist just the last
hop of the West-,..,South-route issue.
------
There are more issues which have never been discussed
here:
Support of (better models of) multicast, mp2mp !
The irrational behind using orthogonal models for intra/inter-domain
routing.
The fundamental deficiencies of distance vector.
------
Incremental deployability:
Like "ships in the night", as has been mentioned, several mechanisms may
coexist:
Seafarers used to watch the stars. Using the compass and watching the
magnetic needle came in parallel.
Car navigation did not start out with CDs that covered the entire continent
either.
All of these methods are independend from each other, can evolve, and also,
may fallback if necessary.
My solution was argued down to be not incrementally deployable. Just the
opposite is the case and can be compared with the
progress in automobile navigation where at first the navigation
quality was also minor (e.g. was lost itself), so that more often
the driver had to fallback using other methods (maps, direction
signs).
Here, at the beginning when a rather small number of routers
takes part in the new protocol, switching back to the current method will be
necessary although the packet hasn't yet approached the destination very well.
But that will be improved the more routers are going to participate. In a
half-half scenario, falling back to current BGP however means, to benefit just
from the REGIONAL update churn! The global update churn is only required
for today's routing.
Yes, a new additional mechanism gets its deployment incentives from
providing better service (the compass needle can be watched also in cloudy
nights, the car navigation makes driving comfortable,..)
I mentioned quite a few such additional aspects above. There are even
more (e.g. there is really no IPv4 depletion problem) and I learn more and
more the longer I follow this mailinglist discussion.
Heiner
extremely, it would hereb small. There is no prefix aggregation
problem if you aggregate the area instead (remember:Rhekther's law offers 2
alternative choices).
I have heard that a Dijkstra can be already be run within a second
dealing with 10 000 nodes.
|