In einer eMail vom 26.10.2010 20:40:46 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt [email protected]:
I was also a little bit shocked - since I have proposed hIPv4 -when I noticed that hierarchical routing is a bad choice... You should see TARA's advantages wrt hipv4. As routing occurs based on the dest. TARA-locator, the dest address may be what so ever: IPv4, IPv6, HIP But after studying a bunch of Compact Routing papers I discovered that when CR researchers are discussing hierarchical routing they are actually discussing CIDR, i.e. routing tables are kept under control by aggregating and summarizing prefixes - and a global flat address space is used. With this concept there will be stretch issues, the more compact RT the the more likely it is to have a high stretch value for a session. If I got it all wrong I ask kindly the CR researchers to correct me, thanks. Think this is not the hierarchical routing TARA is proposing, think TARA falls into Landmark Routing category -there are papers available on-line and I also found one draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-lanmar-05: Well, I am not a friend of DV :-) Heiner
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
