Hi Dmitri, I don't understand. Do you mean that this kind of greedy routing can generate routing paths that satisfy all possible routing policies in TE, load balancing, etc.
Thanks Yangyang ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dmitri Krioukov" <[email protected]> To: "'Tony Li'" <[email protected]> Cc: "'IRTF Routing RG'" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:52 AM Subject: Re: [rrg] Fwd: Sustaining the Internet with hyperbolic mapping > 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 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
