Thus spake "Sean Finn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Chasing the last ms of optimization tends to both focus traffic > on the single "best" link, as well as increasing the rate of route > change as the "best" continually changes. > > Considering alternate paths with roughly similar performance > significantly changes the picture. This not only reduces the > required rate of route change, but also tends to spread the > load across the range of valid (near-optimal) paths, and thus > significantly mitigates the concerns raised in the paper.
The problem is eliminating the possibility of a packet taking a "near optimal" path from A to B, and then taking another "near optimal" path from B back to A. I suspect this is impossible to fix while retaining hop-by-hop routing. S
