On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:44:49 EDT, [email protected] wrote: > HH:Do you think the objectives are not persuasive enough? In total, they > go far beyond the objectives of ILNP. Not long ago, Lixia asked for them, > I > wrote them up, and yes, since then, I got no response. > I don't want to stipulate, why. Is this my fault ? TARA is based on > routing > algorithm no one else has ever built, and which neither IETF folks nor
> University teachers have ever imagined to be possible. [snip] > HH: I'm not impressed. All my concept is based on algorithm which are far > beyond Dijkstra. > E.g. algorithm to compute (consistently/ identical) well-skimmed > higher-zoom topologies. Heiner, please send a pointer to an internet-draft/journal article/whitepaper describing TARA. Speaking only for myself, I'm not interested in or willing to reverse engineer your scheme based on a long series of cryptic emails distributed over time. [snip] >> I am convinced that any native English speaking person would agree >> that a locator of a node should be something that denote where >> something is, rather than what something is. > > I am a native English speaking person. > A subnetwork IS a location. Ran is talking about location within a network's topology graph. You seem to be talking about location in terms of geographic coordinates, correct? >> By knowing the TARA-locator of some particular node >> you would be able to identify the neighboring nodes, >> or more precisely the nodes located in the neighborhood. If by "neighboring" you mean physical proximity, it's not clear to me why that is practically useful. What good is knowing that two nodes are 100 meters apart if they are each attached to separate networks whose closest peering point is 1000 km away? Regards, // Steve _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
