Subject: Re: [rrg] Summary of architectural solution space

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:55:20 EST

In einer eMail vom 22.12.2008 18:54:28 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

Heiner,  

On Dec 22, 2008, at 12:26 AM, [email-masked] 
(mailto:[email-masked])  wrote:

There he states geo-based routing is bad and no one wants to change the  
economic model.

Actually, I was summarizing/paraphrasing one of the axes why  nobody wants to 
change.

Geo-addressing would be lovely if you could constrain the network  topology 
and hence the business relationships to implement it.  Since we  have been 
unable to implement such constraints, it follows that this sort of  change is not 
what people want.

I think there are enough folks around who are both experts in BGP and  OSPF.
(1):
My question is, what sort of policy/QoS/etc. routing can only be  enabled by 
a distance vector protocol and can in principle not  be enabled by a 
link-state protocol ? (note, but I don't need an  instruction that link-state is 
intra-domain, DV is inter-domain)
 
(2):
(my) statement: By knowing a networks topology you can find out all  feasible 
routes/detours. However by knowing just a collection of paths as is  provided 
by the distance vector protocol a router  cannot see all  those paths which 
aren't best or equally best. So my statement is that DV can  only provide about 
a third of the paths, i.e just all ECMP paths. Please correct  me where I am 
wrong.
 
Your expertise is appreciated. I would be very grateful for your  information.
 
Heiner

Geo-based  routing means doing routing just as if GPS-based.  

Only in the least interesting way. 

Yes, that's why TARA favors minimal hop count hopping versus shortest  
distance based hopping whenever applicable.

 What is more interesting is how you'd go about actually  implementing it 
without changing all the existing business relationships and  models that 
currently exist.  As soon as you can come up with a plausible  way of implementing 
this sort of change, I suspect you'd get a bit more  traction

Regards,

-drc

=

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

---

From: "William Herrin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:16:39 -0500

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 5:55 PM,  <[email-masked]> wrote:
> link-state protocol ? (note, but I don't need an instruction that link-state
> is intra-domain, DV is inter-domain)

Address and direction sensitive link state. That is, for some
combinations of source, destination and direction of transit the link
is up, but for other combinations of combinations of source,
destination and direction of transit the link is down.

Distance-vector protocols can provide this for a limited but very
useful subset of the possible combinations.

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