Hi Heiner,
A TARA-router will have a TARA-map which consists of TARA-links each of
which is confined by two TARA nodes. A TARA-link is either strict or
loose. A loose TARA-link is the concatenation of strict and/or other
loose TARA-links and/or GRE-tunnels across non-TARA-aware classical
internet.
So, during this tunneling phase, it seems like the database is O(N^2) in
the number of possible links.
Each strict/loose TARA-link has a weight value which reflects the number
of hops.
Is this updated dynamically?
Hereby some approximation-algorithm is required to determine
the adequate weight value for the inter-domain-GRE-tunnel, somehow
derived from the TARA-locators of its end nodes, or it may be well-known
from OSPF if the GRE-tunnel is intra-domain. Though normally the viewed
strict TARA-links are expected to be from the own geopatch, they may as
well, in single cases, cross have of the globe. The big deal is to
provide algorithms such that each TARA-router ( particularly a
geopatch-border node) can compute the identical set of (mainly looser)
TARA-links which form a skimmed representation of the geopatch’s
topology and which has to be disseminated in a larger scope i.e. into
the surrounding geopatches. This is not an easy task to do or to
describe by few lines, especially when you envision maybe about 5
recursive repetitions, and that each TARA-router within the same
geopatch shall get the same complete TARA-map with the own geopatch in
the center (no Istanbul effect !). Furthermore, not only remoteness but
also the density of some “area” shall affect the scale ratio to be
applied in order to select a subset of TARA-nodes (partially by
computation) plus the computation of TARA-links which are to
interconnect them. Different from former descriptions: If there is at
least one TARA-router within some geopatch, then there should be at
least one TARA-router thereof be communicated worldwide together with at
least one TARA-link to it.
Suppose that a geopatch has only a single TARA-router in it. It then
becomes the decapsulator for all TARA traffic arriving into that
geopatch. Who pays for this router? Who pays to deliver traffic from
this router to the destination access ISP?
Again, if the TARA-router is not part of the interconnect and all local
ISPs do not participate in the interconnect, then you would seem to have
a connectivity issue.
Tony wrote:
Please read Joel's posting again. At the very least, ANY large name
space needs to be managed, and that management needs to be hierarchical
to scale.
No: The geographical coordinates don’t have to be managed. We may need a
very local negotiation protocol in case two TARA-routers are inside the
same square-second. We may of course also add a height-component (see
RFC1712) and/or extent the scheme to consider fractions of square seconds.
Geographical coordinates are already a natural hierarchy anyway. They
will still need to be managed. [Which geopatch am I in? Who manages the
geopatch?] More generally, everything in a network needs _some_
management. We have not yet discovered the mechanisms for self-assembly
of networks.
Tony
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
