>> Sorry, but it is always true that by removing information you always >> lose optimality (you increase stretch). Whether that removal is done at >> the edge or in the core, the result is always the same. There are two >> ironclad rules of routing: >> >> - Removing information decreases optimal routing. > > No.
Yes. :-) In fact, one of the points people are arguing here is, "in these circumstances, the stretch increases." 1. Under normal operation, this proposal doesn't increase stretch (that I know of). 2. Under broken conditions, any proposal may (probably will, in fact) increase stretch. 3. In fact, normal aggregation increases stretch, so... > Also the critical piece is that the determination when and what should > be removed must be 100% automated. There is no way where manual > intervention would be required for any scheme to work right. And your > proposal does require manual NOC intervention as you have already > confirmed today. Robert --methinks you're putting words in my mouth. Beyond the basic configuration, there's no "manual intervention." If you consider configuring the option to be "manual intervention," then we have a fully manual routing system already in place. :-) > The proposal from Pedro however is automated, adjust itself to > topology changes as well as removed only redundant information where > such removal does not impact a single bit routing optimality. This is a very simplified version of the proposal Pedro made --in fact, this proposal actually predates Pedro's. I like Pedro's proposal, but I consider the two different solutions parallel, rather than opposed. There's no reason one AS couldn't implement one, and another the other --it really isn't going to matter in the long run. :-) Russ _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
