thanks, sure, this subject is also in that other in-submission paper.
in a nutshell: almost all greedy paths are policy-compliant paths!
BUT: if we want to *actively* manage mapping as a function of
policies, then it's currently impossible, although we have some
ideas on how to achieve this..
-- 
dima.
http://www.caida.org/~dima/

On Monday, September 13, 2010 3:24 PM, Tony Li wrote:

> 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

Reply via email to