In einer eMail vom 04.12.2007 01:37:18 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I should remind folks that our 'problem' is a matter of research, not engineering. Tony This is why my emails and proposal have been addressed to RRG/IRTF. Imho, LISP should go the usual way: have IETF-BOFs, initiate a LISP WG inside IETF. IRTF stands for research however. Hence RRG should not ask in the first place about the backward compatability , instead AFTER having determined, independendly, what is the best solution. So far I did dispose all about the NIRA-concept which : - eliminates the scalability problem: it reduces the routing table size immensely. It stops the routing churn: In case any representative node went down the node the nearest among all nodes being BoundTo the failing node would take care if there were any "taking care on behalf of"-problems. A new update to the outside is only appropriate, if the node who is in charge of some other has a distance > xyz to that failing node. - enables faster packet forwarding by factor 20 (according to Tony). - only needs the avaibility of longitude/latitude of the packet destination in one way or the other (parameter, outer header,...) but no CONS and no cumbersome config data. - by knowing the (sparsed) internet topology you can do QoS/policy routing much better than without. The goal should be not only as well as inside an OSPF-network but even better (OSPF only knows to deal with Dijkstra) - it enables to deal with the multihoming problem in a new way, as well as with traffic balancing issues. I have been asked for providing a draft about this concept by several people.Where are their comments? Heiner
