Hi Hannu,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Hello (if there is anybody? Has been quite silent recently.)
Recently we have been discussing (e.g. RRG process clarification
discussion) about how to classify different approaches.
> branching structure:
>
> - Map-n-encap
> - Translation
> - Transport
Is there a "Transport" based proposal on the table? I know that Mark
Handly's work has been referred earlier, but is it really meeting the
design goals? Particularly I am curious to see how a transport (or a
solution that is in the end points) can possibly solve the routing
scalability problem that is in the core of the network. How is the
number of the routing entries going to be decreased with transport
level solution? I can clearly see that multihoming is be solved but
not the primary goal of scalability. Any thoughts?
I guess that in a transport based approach, the routing system
scalability is provided by the usage of multiple PA address blocks as in
any other proposal that i have seen so far.
However, the difference is that the multipla addresses are managed at
the transport layer. This has potential advantages. For instance,
transport protocols can react to congestion. So, doing a transport
based solution could provide soem TE capabilities in an autmatica
manner i.e. those more specifics injected in the routing table to route
around congsted paths could be automatically avoided.
Regards, marcelo
If there is not idea how the scalability is improved then it looks to
me that "transport" solutions are not addressing the problem space and
we can drop them at least until there is a proposal that also
addresses the scalability part.
Regards
Hannu
--
to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
