Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems
HeinerHummel@aol.com Sat, 13 February 2010 10:02 UTC
Return-Path: <HeinerHummel@aol.com>
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 4A2983A7990 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 02:02:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.184
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.184 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.414, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 cv9nsnloFu6k for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 02:02:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imr-db02.mx.aol.com (imr-db02.mx.aol.com [205.188.91.96]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 123C03A76C2 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 02:02:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo-ma03.mx.aol.com (imo-ma03.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.138]) by imr-db02.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o1DA3tLo025463; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:03:55 -0500
Received: from HeinerHummel@aol.com by imo-ma03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id v.d28.63feb488 (55718); Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:03:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from magic-d21.mail.aol.com (magic-d21.mail.aol.com [172.19.155.137]) by cia-md02.mx.aol.com (v127.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMD021-d9a64b76790828e; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:03:52 -0500
From: HeinerHummel@aol.com
Message-ID: <8e0.658dad55.38a7d308@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:03:52 -0500
To: danny@arbor.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8e0.658dad55.38a7d308_boundary"
X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5021
X-AOL-ORIG-IP: 95.91.134.11
X-AOL-IP: 172.19.155.137
X-AOL-SENDER: HeinerHummel@aol.com
Cc: rrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems
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: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:02:53 -0000
In einer eMail vom 13.02.2010 00:36:52 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt danny@arbor.net: On Feb 12, 2010, at 12:54 PM, HeinerHummel@aol.com wrote: > > A corner stone of TARA is the computation of consistent topologies for the various zooms (just by knowing the standardized scale ratio).http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/74/slides/grow-6.pdf refers to Route Reflectors (and what they cause). I do observe: IETF- routing experts only know to deal with either full mesh overlay networks or with star-overlay networks (e.g.RR). But not how to provide properly skimmed representative overlay networks of any scale ratio in-between:-( That's because they're constrained by the rules of the routing protocol employed, in this case rules inherent to BGP (path vectors) for loop avoidance. If you've some magical way to work around this in production networks we're all ears ;-) -danny Brian is wrong by stating "Forget Dijkstra" (first sentence of some powerpoint presentation of him) Just the opposite: Forget DV ! Improve Dijkstra and apply it also inter-domain! By disseminating (TARA-)links of a handful different zooms by means of enhanced BGP-UPDATE messages! And do use hereby routable data (TARA-locators) rather than just mappable data. And loops? My impression is: People are fond of loops. I remember a dispute with Joel, about 10 years ago. Scenario: A triangle shaped PNNI-network consisting of the 3 nodes A, B, and C. A and B belong to peer group PG1, C belongs to peer group PG2. Peer group PG1 partitions, i.e. the link between A and B breaks. My solution was to compute a source routing information (DTL stack) to detour via C in order to get from A to B. Joel heavily opposed this idea because it formed a loop: from PG1 to PG2 back to PG1. Today I see opposition against TARA because the network inside a geopatch might partition. Yes, this may happen. But dealing with partitions starts with getting from one partition to the other. And I can only offer a loop: out to some neighbor geopatch, from there back to the other partition of the own geopatch. Heiner
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Danny McPherson
- [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Dale W. Carder
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Fleischman, Eric
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Christopher Morrow
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Shane Amante
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Christopher Morrow
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Danny McPherson
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Paul Jakma
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Christopher Morrow
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Danny McPherson
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Christopher Morrow
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Tom Vest
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Christopher Morrow
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Tom Vest
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Paul Jakma
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Danny McPherson
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Christopher Morrow
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Christopher Morrow
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Christopher Morrow
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems Christopher Morrow
- Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems HeinerHummel