In einer eMail vom 16.03.2010 08:34:27 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt li...@cs.ucla.edu:
On Mar 15, 2010, at 4:30 AM, _heinerhum...@aol.com_ (mailto:heinerhum...@aol.com) wrote: In einer eMail vom 15.03.2010 08:00:10 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt _li...@cs.ucla.edu_ (mailto:li...@cs.ucla.edu) : Heiner, 1/ I am not quite clear why collecting topological links is the #1 question for RRG/routing scalability solution development 2/ my group has been collecting Internet AS level topology for the last 5 years. the following one is the most recent paper: _The (in)Completeness of the Observed Internet AS-level Structure_ (http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~bzhang/paper/10-ToN-completness.pdf) IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Feb 2010. although the paper just got published, some of the numbers may have already changed in reality. However one fact should remain true: by putting BGP data from all the sources we can get our hand on, the collected results still miss majority of the peering links between ASes. Lixia, Thanks for the above document reference. My guess: You collect this AS-level topological network information just for academic interest. i.e. for doing some interesting studies. That's all. we do not do studies just for academic interest. The goal of the above is to explain what one can or cannot observe about the AS connectivity. I should have said "for doing off-line purposes". I have expressed the "on-line" objectives many times, some of them see below, which I think go beyond keeping the internet running just as well as is currently still the case. This is not at all my point. My question is: What would be achievable in terms of better routing, if the same kind of topological information were available in inter-domain routing as is the case in intra-domain routing ! I understand, and my point (based on the data) is that inter-domain topological info is largely *not* available, and for a reason. Nor would my TARA-model insist on being fed with all topology info, even more: its goal is to skim the available topology information. See below from my previous email, I didn't mention the two additional side effects: 1) no single prefix and 2) no single route to be disseminated/collected anymore. And there is indeed a very long list of achievabilities including: - Mobility without home-agent/care-of-address server by well-scoped broadcast search messages Any comments to this mobility objective? - Congestion handling by detouring and not, a la re-ECN, by slowing down (video :-( ???) transmission - Enabling any detours (incl. crankback using ones) and getting rid of the loop phantom fear Any comments to this TE objective? - 99 % state-less Multicast Any comments here? - speeding up next hop determination by 20 x 100 = 2000 % -......etc..etc... Comments? By insisting on DV this group prevents all major progress, including that progress none of us is currently able to think of. Remember the IBM commercial! Rather asking the transport goods for where we are, we should provide a networking layer technology for the benefit of services above. Heiner _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
