Re: [RRG] RRG process clarification

[HeinerHummel@aol.com]

In einer eMail vom 22.04.2008 15:44:09 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt christian.vogt@nomadiclab.com:

> Wrt this example: at first, a routing technology should be provided, 
> that gives you all the options - of course, in a scalable way.

Heiner,

"Code is law", says Lawrence Lessig, and I think he has a point.
We have to consider, up front, what the code (or the protocol,
in our case) should allow and what it should forbid.

- Christian

Aha,  another law for the RRG :-). But let me backup a little bit:

I do not know any particular reason why - intradomain-like - entering a particular egress node via some preferenced ingress link should be a useful objective. I only wanted to point out that a knowledge about the topology would enable more sophisticated algorithms/mechanisms/protocols.

 

Wrt multihoming and interdomain routing let's see what people think is a) desirable, b) feasible.

 

Heiner

 

--
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