The analogy between street addresses and packet addresses for routing
has MANY weaknesses.
Street routing relies on the fact that connectivity is highly meshed.
And that streets are generally free for anyone to use.
Further, street routing relies on the fact that there is a human being
who can learn and adapt his behavior, if the basic routing fails. If
you can not get to your destination from the obvious exit from the
highway, you can get back on, and try another exit. or even call for
help as to how to get to the destination. Packets are not so
intelligent. (Tunnels and lookup tables approximate many of these same
techniques. But they are not the same as having a human at the wheel of
a car.) The many interesting reports of people driving into trouble
because the nav system said to do something foolish are indicative of
what happens if you try to use a street oriented routing system without
an intelligence in place.
Yes, once could imagine a world in which connectivity is mandated and
maintained such that street-like routing will work. But unless we want
to change the regulatory and business structures of base IP
connectivity, we do not live in that world.
(If we are willing to make that degree of change, something like compact
routing becomes far more interesting, as that requires explicit and
predictable resource sharing.)
Yours,
Joel
Scott Brim wrote:
On 7/3/08 3:45 PM, William Herrin allegedly wrote:
-MY- point was that Line 1 need not be there at all. It is an
identifier which serves no role in the routing. If you get line 1
wrong or leave it off entirely your letter will still get to me.
It's a port selector.
--
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
--
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
