|
In einer eMail vom 10.07.2008 16:48:15 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
bill@herrin.us:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 9:04 AM, <HeinerHummel@aol.com> wrote: I should have added already here: I am not in favor of a BGP-like Routing
Table that contains geographical prefixes !!! I am not favoring collecting
routes, instead computing/distributing/collecting topological links of different
zooming levels. And links can be marked. E.g. "Not for transit". Will
say, your example doesn't manifest any problem.
I admit, I still have some problems by going for the "ultimate" which of
course is the more hampered by the incremental deployability issue. But your
example is not one of them.
If you look at the graph on www.hummel-research.de you can see
many, many routes to the red destination node which caters for multipath,
traffic balancing, QoS/Policy-routing... Why not also inter-domain-wise ?!
By knowing the topology you can do better policy-TE than without.
Sure, after you have learnt shortest path, first. And the elimination of the
scalability problem is just a side-effect !
IMO I do propagate a different school of thought. It will also enable
different solutions with respect to rigidity versus compromises. In the past I
have seen that the PNNI-architecture was given about 5 years of efforts,
although (as I know now) it defeated itself: the hierarchical nodes became
bigger and bigger, hence required a node-internal topology :-(. But if you
look at GOOGLE MAP examples: that looks marvelous and does inspire to do
topology aggregation or, if you want, to compose topologies of mixed zooming
levels.
IMO, research is about trying.
Heiner
|