In einer eMail vom 28.09.2010 19:09:28 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt [email protected]:
> Dima, > > There may be MPLS-LSPs which, at layer 3, make one router in Chicago > to a one-hop-neighbor of another router in Sydney. Certainly, such > links aren't as many as there are between regional neighbor routers. > Nevertheless they have to be considered and are of great importance. > Please explain to all, how this fits into your concept (you haven't > convinced me offlist so far). Simply put, there are multiple paths between Chicago and Sydney. So a failure in the US, can be packet rerouted. If you want to compare with MPLS, it is just a circuit versus datagram argument. Which I will not get into because that would be way off topic. Dino Dino, this is a different issue and unrelated with the stuxnet topic. Henry Kissinger once said: It is difficult to applaude and shrug the shoulders at the same time. I must admit that being not convinced is also due to my lack of understanding intellectually. I guess, Dima and I have in common that we do not seek solutions within the frame given by DV and this awful prefix aggregation. But I am against that in such a way that I am against aggregated nodes (with internal topologies), no matter whether you call them ASes or peer groups or anything else. But Dima will certainly explain his concept Heiner
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
