On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Toni Stoev <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24.5.2010 at 04:04:11 Dae Young KIM sent: >> Toni, >> >> 2. Inter-domain routing shall be based on intra-domain routing as a >> service. >> >> Would you elaborate on it more, please? > > "Intra-domain routing as a service" means that a packet is able to traverse a > routing domain as an inter-domain hop. The packet is so able by containing > the destination routing domain ID and/or the next-hop routing domain ID. The > routers in the current domain forward the packet to the next-hop domain > serving collectively as an inter-domain router/forwarder. > Then inter-domain routing utilizes routing domain hopping with a graph > routing technique.
Exactly the same idea as mine. Now, the question might be what gain there would be for our scheme in comparison to use of global-scope Locators for domains as in ILNP. At least, curious to you and me. However, I'm not sure whether we can keep torturing people in this RRG with our discussion since apparently most regard our idea as a non-sense. Also, this thread was about polling not about any other wild ideas. As long as this is RRG, not ILNP WG, however, I think there still should be room for other discussions on routing by starting a separate thread. Or, now that the objectives of the RRG have been apparently achieved, we might wait until a new group would be formed to continue our discussion. Or just keep private any further discussions. > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > -- DY _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
