Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems

Danny McPherson <danny@arbor.net> Fri, 12 February 2010 23:35 UTC

Return-Path: <danny@arbor.net>
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 DB2643A791B for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:35:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 XkTlJj-WK7PL for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:35:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gateout02.mbox.net (gateout02.mbox.net [165.212.64.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 179FC3A791A for <rrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:35:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gateout02.mbox.net (gwo2-lo [127.0.0.1]) by gateout02.mbox.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 652E24BC04A; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:36:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from s1hub2.EXCHPROD.USA.NET [165.212.120.254] by gateout02.mbox.net via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.61T) with ESMTPS id XID569oBLXKz2386Xo2; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:36:51 -0000
X-USANET-Source: 165.212.120.254 IN danny@arbor.net s1hub2.EXCHPROD.USA.NET
X-USANET-MsgId: XID569oBLXKz2386Xo2
Received: from [192.168.1.64] (97.118.239.19) by exchange.postoffice.net (10.120.220.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.234.1; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:35:33 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Danny McPherson <danny@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <fd46.7b2783b4.38a70bd8@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:35:54 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <F82CD190-CE13-43F4-B971-5B4F0DEAB15F@arbor.net>
References: <fd46.7b2783b4.38a70bd8@aol.com>
To: HeinerHummel@aol.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Cc: RRG <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: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:35:33 -0000

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