Hi Dmitri, Might I suggest that a discussion of transit policies might also be in order?
Thanks, Tony On Sep 13, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Dmitri Krioukov wrote: > thanks much for you comments! indeed, topology dynamics is > concern #1 in geometric routing. that's why we considered both > short- and long-term dynamics, all in the paper. we emulate the > former (by killing a percentage of links and nodes) and > replayed the latter using the measurable history of internet > evolution over the past few years with ASs and AS connections > appearing, disappearing, etc., and the results are still very > good, pretty much the same as for the static case. amazing, > isn't it? i know it's hard to believe, and even we can't stop being > surprised how well it works. we have another paper in submission, > where we take space to explain why it works so well, and where > we discuss some aspects of what it would take to implement > and use this stuff in practice. > -- > dima. > http://www.caida.org/~dima/ > > On Friday, September 10, 2010 4:29 PM, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > >> On 2010-09-09, Dmitri Krioukov wrote: >> >>> marshall, thanks for posting it here. i also thinks it's relevant :) >> >> Thanks from me too, and it's certainly relevant. Still, it might not be >> as good an idea as it sells itself as. >> >> Geometric routing ideas have been around for quite a while now. They >> certainly do this sort of thing within manets right now, because of the >> spatial nature of a cloud of terminals/sensors. So in certain ways the >> idea works well indeed. >> >> I'd be the first to say that geometric routing is a swell and elegant >> idea. Yet, it tends to have some inherent problems in the wired setting >> where a) the topology and the geometry of the network isn't as static as >> a cloud of 3D sensors would see, b) where we have to have static contact >> points like DNS fully available at more or less fixed destination >> addresses all of the time, to map from points of interest to >> topological/geometrical addresses/locations, c) any static mapping like >> the one proposed in the paper could *severely* undercut routing >> efficiency as soon as someboby built a new undersea cable, which of >> course severely changes the routing landscape in one fell swoop, and d) >> when we then probably would go with an adaptive routing protocol, there >> is a serious problem with asymmetric paths. That final problem doesn't >> plague just Euclidean distance measures, but all of the metric ones as >> well, including the hyperbolic. >> >> As regards an adaptive geometric routing protocol, IRTF's ALTO group has >> charted this stuff quite extensively already in the context of routing >> within overlay networks. I suggest everybody look into that body if they >> haven't already, if interested in geometric routing. >> >> In my opinion, this particular article is a nice touch onto how best >> parametrize network distance. Based on the article and the references, a >> hyperbolic space might well provide us with a better parametrization of >> distance in a scale-free network within the geometric routing paradigm. >> But it won't solve the more fundamental problems which have stopped us >> from adopting geometric routing in the past. >> >> I'd say this body of work is a building block for further research, more >> than the showstopper it'd like us to see itself as. >> -- >> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - [email protected], http://decoy.iki.fi/front >> +358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2 > > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
