Comments on alternatives
yakov@watson.ibm.com Wed, 08 March 1995 14:10 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02626;
8 Mar 95 9:10 EST
Received: from maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
id aa02622; 8 Mar 95 9:10 EST
Received: from watson.ibm.com (watson.ibm.com [129.34.139.4]) by
maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com (8.6.9/ACTON-MAIN-1.2) with SMTP id JAA22805 for
<rolc@maelstrom.timeplex.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 1995 09:03:08 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: yakov@watson.ibm.com
Message-Id: <199503081403.JAA22805@maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com>
Received: from YKTVMV by watson.ibm.com (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 3821;
Wed, 08 Mar 95 09:04:06 EST
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 95 09:04:06 EST
To: jhalpern@newbridge.com, rolc@maelstrom.timeplex.com
Subject: Comments on alternatives
Ref: Your note of Wed, 8 Mar 1995 08:17:02 +0500
Joel,
>If there are multiple levels, one is required to make several queries
>and maintain several "relationships" with aggregating routers.
While the first part of your statement ("make several queries") is
correct, the second ("maintain several "relationships" with aggregating
routers") isn't exactly right. At any given time you need to maintain
only *one* relationship.
>This seems to be significant overhead.
Would you provide any analysis or any empirical data that supports
your statement ?
Yakov.
- Comments on alternatives Joel Halpern
- Comments on alternatives yakov
- Re: Comments on alternatives j.garrett
- Re: Comments on alternatives Curtis Villamizar
- Comments on alternatives yakov