Subject: [rrg] Summary of architectural solution space

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:42:44 EST

Some comment and proposals to improve the strategy C text which  currently 
is: 
Strategy C.  
Suppress distant routes by aggregating them into sets expected to be  
available in a given direction. Because LOC reachability info is not flooded,  the 
routing tables each router must deal with are relatively small. 
Variants include: 
C1. Geographic aggregation. All nodes within some geographic boundary are  
assigned the same LOC. Routers move packets to any adjacent router deemed to be  
"closer" to the LOC in question. 
Major criticisms: 
No one has been able to construct a protocol under strategy C without  
introducing constraints that are fundamentally incompatible with the Internet's  
economic model. For example, Geoag has been shown to have uncorrectable  
theft-of-service anomalies in networks as small as 8 autonomous systems and two  
geographic areas. 
--------------------------proposed text:  
--------------------------------------------------------- 
Strategy  C: 
Extend BGP  such that routers can acquire the view of a well-sparsed internet 
 topology
with strict links in the near surrounding and - in general - with  loose and 
looser links the
more remote they are (strict links to very remote  nodes may still be part of 
this topology). Determine the next best  hop  based on that viewed 
destination node which is either the true  destination node or a node which is closest 
to  the true but not  yet visible  destination node. Arrange the results such 
that a best next hop  can be retrieved either by 1 or by  3 table lookups.  
Of course,  incremental deployment has to be supported.The goal is to shrink  
the routing table continuously so that it becomes empty as soon as  all DFZ 
routers will comply. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------- 
Major  criticisms: I do not  know who is Geoag, so I cannot give an 
explanation  why Geoag failed. 
Heiner 

_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: "William Herrin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:11:45 -0500

> Some comment and proposals to improve the strategy C text which currently

This references http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures.html

The current text is:

> available in a given direction. Because LOC reachability info is not
> flooded, the routing tables each router must deal with are relatively small.

> destination node which is either the true destination node or a node which
> is closest to  the true but not yet visible  destination node. Arrange the
> results such that a best next hop can be retrieved either by 1 or by  3
> table lookups.

As I mentioned in our email exchange, I don't understand what this
means. What is a "well-sparsed" Internet? What is a loose or strict
link? How do you determine that a node is "closest to" a node that
isn't visible? What is the significance of 1 or 3 table lookups?

> the routing table continuously so that it becomes empty as soon as  all DFZ

This is a goal, not a strategy.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ [email-masked]  [email-masked]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg