>
>My experience with hamradio networks says that a very good way to do ip
>networking in packet radio will be using 2 levels of routing protocols:
>1) "Intranetwork". Doing that a subnetwork is "coherent", and has internal
>connectivity (a set of point to point routes to the hosts in your subnet).
That
>is very well done by rspf, wich is really 100% adapted to packet radio. Sure,
>that routing here must no be too complicate if the subnetwork is defined in a
>little geographic zone.
>
> 2) Internetwork. Defining well the subnets and having it well
>"intraconnected", you can do routing with routes to networks (and interconect
>networls) ... rip-2 do that well (?). That means that you don't have to
export
>millions of routes, only the routes to the networks.
>The problem is that implementatios of rip-2 are not thinked for packet-radio
>(except the nos).
What you are describing here is the difference between IGP (Internal
Gateway Protocol) and EGP (External). In the Internet world they are
typically seperated by administrative control, or "Autonomous Systems".
Provider A will use OSPF (igp) for his infrastructure, and will announce
aggregates of his address space with BGP (egp).
This probably would work for packet, but from my point of view, the
administrative and political boundries tend not to be well defined. If you
are part of a local packet network, and there are other networks close by,
this model would seem to fit. However, in my little corner of the world the
network is not that well defined.
Just my $.02
-Steve
