On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Francis Dupont wrote: > I haven't heard anyone answering my question as to why > reverse tunnelling by the MN thru the HA is so much > worse than triangular routing, > > => d(bidir tunnel) = 2 * d(MN,HA) + 2 * d(HA,CN) > d(triangular) = d(MN,HA) + d(HA,CN) + d(MN,CN) > d(optimization) = 2 * d(MN,CN) > and we always have d(MN,CN) <= d(MN,HA) + d(HA,CN) > so d(optimization) <= d(triangular) <= d(bidir tunnel) > and even stronger 2 * d(triangular) = d(optimization) + d(bidir tunnel) > i.e. in my poor English the cost/performance of triangular routing > is at the middle of bidirectional tunneling and routing optimization.
In theory, yes. But the question is, does it really make that much of a difference as long as at least one way is "unoptimized"? Practise? I don't think there's much difference in bidir tunnel/triangular routing; I doubt e.g. TCP would be able to get much better performance from triangular than from bi-dir (and there are goals like hiding your origins that triangular cannot solve). -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
