Subject: Re: [rrg] issue#1 from Heiner Hummel

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2010 04:36:33 EDT

See below
Heiner
 
In einer eMail vom 18.06.2010 21:20:22 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

On Fri,  18 Jun 2010 14:44:49 EDT, [email-masked] wrote:

> HH:Do you  think the objectives are not persuasive enough?  In total, 
they  
> go far beyond the objectives of ILNP. Not long ago, Lixia asked  for
them,
> I  
> wrote them up, and  yes, since  then, I got no response.
> I don't want to stipulate, why. Is this my  fault ? TARA is based on
> routing 
>  algorithm no one else  has ever built, and which neither IETF folks nor 

> University  teachers have ever imagined to be possible.

[snip]

> HH: I'm  not impressed. All my concept is based on algorithm which are
far   
> beyond Dijkstra.
> E.g. algorithm to compute (consistently/  identical) well-skimmed  
> higher-zoom topologies.

Heiner,  please send a pointer to an internet-draft/journal
article/whitepaper  describing TARA.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not interested in or  willing to reverse
engineer your scheme based on a long series of cryptic  emails distributed
over time.

I have promptly sent you the same document that I had also shown to  
R.Raszuk and Dima Krioukov some time earlier.

[snip]

>> I am convinced that any native  English speaking person  would agree 
>> that a locator of a  node should be something that denote  where 
>> something is,  rather than what something is.
> 
> I am a  native English  speaking person. 
> A subnetwork IS a location.

Ran is talking  about location within a network's topology graph.  You seem
to be  talking about location in terms of geographic coordinates,  correct?

>> By  knowing the TARA-locator of some particular  node 
>> you would be able to  identify the neighboring nodes,  
>> or more precisely the nodes located  in the  neighborhood.

If by "neighboring" you mean physical proximity, it's not  clear to me why
that is practically useful.  What good is knowing that  two nodes are 100
meters apart if they are each attached to separate  networks whose closest
peering point is 1000 km away?

The fowarding path follows the connectivity of the network (what else!).  
The shortest path is still that one with
the least hops. The above scenario is (only) similar to a "partitioning  
case". But, according to TARA, inside some geopatch there may be
network parts which have no geopatch-internal connectivity - quite  
normally, i.e. not due to some broken link.
 
As you may have realized in the meantime, physical proximity is only  
exploited to the extent that
the process for determining the various network topologies of the various  
zooms is well organized:
a) wrt  constraining the work load of the participating  routers
b) wrt to the resulting zoom-specific topologies (i.e. so that all parts  
fit together without any overlaps ) 
 
You might also have realized how important it is to have at least 5 zooming 
 levels, although, as a consequence, the scale ratio must be
rather like 1:2 than 1:10 (due to the tiny internet :-)

Regards,

// Steve