See below Heiner In einer eMail vom 18.06.2010 21:20:22 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt [email protected]:
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. I have promptly sent you the same document that I had also shown to R.Raszuk and Dima Krioukov some time earlier. [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? The fowarding path follows the connectivity of the network (what else!). The shortest path is still that one with the least hops. The above scenario is (only) similar to a "partitioning case". But, according to TARA, inside some geopatch there may be network parts which have no geopatch-internal connectivity - quite normally, i.e. not due to some broken link. As you may have realized in the meantime, physical proximity is only exploited to the extent that the process for determining the various network topologies of the various zooms is well organized: a) wrt constraining the work load of the participating routers b) wrt to the resulting zoom-specific topologies (i.e. so that all parts fit together without any overlaps ) You might also have realized how important it is to have at least 5 zooming levels, although, as a consequence, the scale ratio must be rather like 1:2 than 1:10 (due to the tiny internet :-) Regards, // Steve
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
