In einer eMail vom 14.02.2010 07:46:03 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt morrowc.li...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 5:03 AM, <heinerhum...@aol.com> wrote: > loop: from PG1 to PG2 back to PG1. Today I see opposition against TARA > because the network inside a geopatch might partition. Yes, this may happen. > But dealing with partitions starts with getting from one partition to the > other. And I can only offer a loop: out to some neighbor geopatch, from > there back to the other partition of the own geopatch. if all you know is PG1, no subnets/sublocators/identifiers, how does pg2 know not to send traffic back the same link it came from? (note this all seems pretty far out of rrg though) So let me answer your question just in the context of a Topology Aggregating Routing Architecture: Each TARA-router would realize that its geopatch is partitioned by receiving BGP-UPDATE's containing TARA-links of some upper zoom into the own geopatch which it wasn't able to produce itself. Loopfree, minimally detouring routes via neighboring geopatches can be determined and can be enforced for being taken. Heiner
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
