One additional remark: I have been involved in PNNI.So I know a lot about state of the art hierarchical routing. When we did PNNI we were fancy about address summarization (wrt 3 address families!) as well as about topology aggregation (which we did definitively in a wrong way). Today I am pursuing a completely different topology aggregation in order to get rid of address summarization completely. I have said several times, that I have learned to be patient. However there is a limit: TARA can incrementally be deployed such that the BGP table size would continuously shrink provided that during this phase IPv4 addresses are still globally unique. Thereafter they may be router-locally unique, no problem. Heiner In einer eMail vom 30.12.2008 00:17:21 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [email protected]:
know this paper for quite a while and whenever I mentioned any word on this mailinglist about "stretch", a term invented by these authors as to discriminate ANY hierarchical routing architecture, those that they know as well as those that they don't know, I had to think of this paper. Heiner In einer eMail vom 29.12.2008 23:56:13 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [email protected]: In an earlier message 000565 I mentioned a paper: On Compact Routing for the Internet Dmitri Krioukov, kc claffy, Kevin Fall, Arthur Brady ACM SIGCOMM CCR, v.37, n.3, p.41-52, 2007 This is available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2309 - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
