Re: [rrg] Next revision
Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au> Thu, 25 February 2010 04:54 UTC
Return-Path: <rw@firstpr.com.au>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3541B28C173 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:54:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.733
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.733 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9ZI6zB5lQE5p for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:54:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gair.firstpr.com.au (gair.firstpr.com.au [150.101.162.123]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA5A28C12C for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:54:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.6] (wira.firstpr.com.au [10.0.0.6]) by gair.firstpr.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A92175E52; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:56:36 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <4B860307.7090204@firstpr.com.au>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:56:39 +1100
From: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
Organization: First Principles
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rrg@irtf.org
References: <C7AB183D.3987%tony.li@tony.li>
In-Reply-To: <C7AB183D.3987%tony.li@tony.li>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [rrg] Next revision
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 04:54:31 -0000
Hi Tony, You wrote: >> I'll leave TTR and DFZ as an exercise for others.. :-) OK, see below for DFZ. I don't think "TTR" or "TTR mobility" needs to be defined in an acronym list, since it is only used in the Ivip section, where it has its own heading and explanation. Here is a short definition if you want to include it: TTR Translating Tunnel Router, used for mobility, which plays the role of an ETR and to which mobile nodes connect via two-way tunnels from their one or more access network addresses. TTRs also handle the mobile node's outgoing packets and so, typically, include an ITR function for those packets which need to be tunneled to ETRs. Can you alter part of the Ivip summary? Currently: Open ITRs in the DFZ (OITRDs, similar to LISP's PTRs) tunnel packets sent by hosts in networks which lack ITRs. to: Default ITRs in the DFZ (DITRs, similar to LISP's Proxy Tunnel Routers) tunnel packets sent by hosts in networks which lack ITRs. This doesn't alter the substance of the summary, but brings it up to date with my new terminology. Here's a revision to the DFZ definition: > DFZ Default-Free Zone: The collection of autonomous systems that do > not require a default route to forward a packet to any > destination. DFZ Default-Free Zone: Routers in the interdomain routing system which have two or more "upstream" interfaces which carry best paths for all globally routed prefixes except those advertised by the router's own autonomous system. Routers with a single such "upstream" link assign the "default route" to this link, and so do not need to consider all the globally routed prefixes which originate in other autonomous systems. Routers with two such upstream links cannot use any such "default route" because each such external prefix must be assigned to a specific one of the two or more upstream interfaces. Routers with two or more upstream links are said to be in the Default-Free Zone of the interdomain routing system - and so must handle all the prefixes advertised in the interdomain routing system. Sorry this is long, but "DFZ" is an important and obtuse term which needs to be defined clearly. I don't agree with the "collection of autonomous systems" definition, which seems to be from the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DFZ An AS can have many routers and only some of those routers are in the DFZ, as best I understand it. - Robin
- Re: [rrg] Next revision Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] Next revision Noel Chiappa
- [rrg] Next revision Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] Next revision George, Wes E [NTK]
- Re: [rrg] Next revision Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] Next revision Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] Next revision Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] Next revision Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] Next revision Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] Next revision Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] Next revision Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] Next revision Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] Next revision - DFZ definition Robin Whittle