Hi Hannu, hannu.flinck@nsn.com escribió:
I guess that in a transport based approach, the routing system scalability is provided by the usage of multiple PA address blocks as in any other proposal that i have seen so far.Hello (if there is anybody? Has been quite silent recently.)Recently we have been discussing (e.g. RRG process clarification discussion) about how to classify different approaches.> branching structure: > > - Map-n-encap > - Translation > - TransportIs there a "Transport" based proposal on the table? I know that Mark Handly's work has been referred earlier, but is it really meeting the design goals? Particularly I am curious to see how a transport (or a solution that is in the end points) can possibly solve the routing scalability problem that is in the core of the network. How is the number of the routing entries going to be decreased with transport level solution? I can clearly see that multihoming is be solved but not the primary goal of scalability. Any thoughts?
However, the difference is that the multipla addresses are managed at the transport layer. This has potential advantages. For instance, transport protocols can react to congestion. So, doing a transport based solution could provide soem TE capabilities in an autmatica manner i.e. those more specifics injected in the routing table to route around congsted paths could be automatically avoided.
Regards, marcelo
If there is not idea how the scalability is improved then it looks to me that "transport" solutions are not addressing the problem space and we can drop them at least until there is a proposal that also addresses the scalability part.Regards Hannu
-- 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