[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Geographic aggregation-based routing
- To: HeinerHummel@aol.com
- Subject: Re: [RRG] Geographic aggregation-based routing
- From: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:56:29 -0400
- Cc: rrg@psg.com
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=BCZQ8VDzcCIcDgC6kDnySyqwnUwc6MrrSVN6cuqPwukEUJ3Cc263IMkVgJzigBS34I 6i1rzI57HQW3OVLZez2lG6+ZEGa3tYpdveWHU5PwDf+Fgf8sl6nvTwql5lTOXL5sRW3S sn1l2w5wYtIy+sRS4WYt082Oa4dt7ykDbCGeI=
- In-reply-to: <d0e.30daeb11.35a9414d@aol.com>
- References: <d0e.30daeb11.35a9414d@aol.com>
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:05 PM, <HeinerHummel@aol.com> wrote:
> My understanding of what you want is this: forwarding from C to B is not
> allowed. Hence the packet from D to E must go like
> this: D--->C-->G-->F-->E and NOT D-->C-->B-->F-->E.
> My saying is: That can be respected. But this is almost normal Dijkstra.Only
> the following enhancements are required: Build a graph, which consists of
> these nodes A,..H and of directed arrows. Between any two nodes according to
> the black lines there are two inversely directed arrows.Except between B
> and C. Here there is only one arrow which is from B to C, but not from C to
> B.
> Node C runs Dijkstra with itself being the root, however modified such that
> selecting a predecessor node for any node presumes that there is an arrow
> from that predecessor node to that "any"-node. So , while running Dijkstra,
> C won't even see that B is a neighbor/candidate.Hence the resulting shortest
> path tree will not include "from C to B" but only "from C to G".
Okay. I added what I think you just described in red at
http://bill.herrin.us/network/geoag-h1.gif. Is that correct?
This means that the forwarding information base at node G looks like:
destination {left area}: send to F
destination C: send to C
destination H: send to H
destination D: send to C
And the FIB at node C looks like:
destination {left area}: send to G
destination G: send to G
destination D: send to D
destination H: send to G
Is that correct?
So, D--->C-->G-->F-->E happens for packets from D to E because when
the packet is at C, C understands that all of {left area} is available
via G and when the packet is at G, G understands that all of {left
area} is available via F. Thus geographic aggregation cut the FIB
almost in half since C and G only have to keep track of {left area}
instead of keeping track of A, B. F and E.
Still correct?
-Bill
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
--
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