On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:42 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Some comment and proposals to improve the strategy C text which currently > is:
This references http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures.html The current text is: > Suppress distant routes by aggregating them into sets expected to be > available in a given direction. Because LOC reachability info is not > flooded, the routing tables each router must deal with are relatively small. > --------------------------proposed text: > Extend BGP such that routers can acquire the view of a well-sparsed internet > topology > with strict links in the near surrounding and - in general - with loose and > looser links the > more remote they are (strict links to very remote nodes may still be part of > this topology). Determine the next best hop based on that viewed > destination node which is either the true destination node or a node which > is closest to the true but not yet visible destination node. Arrange the > results such that a best next hop can be retrieved either by 1 or by 3 > table lookups. As I mentioned in our email exchange, I don't understand what this means. What is a "well-sparsed" Internet? What is a loose or strict link? How do you determine that a node is "closest to" a node that isn't visible? What is the significance of 1 or 3 table lookups? > Of course, incremental deployment has to be supported.The goal is to shrink > the routing table continuously so that it becomes empty as soon as all DFZ > routers will comply. This is a goal, not a strategy. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
