Re: [rrg] Next topic?

Jose Manuel Camacho Camacho <jcamacho@it.uc3m.es> Wed, 11 May 2011 22:49 UTC

Return-Path: <jcamacho@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C636E08A5 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uJ5eF4q787EF for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB464E0870 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from [192.168.1.35] (93.Red-88-19-80.staticIP.rima-tde.net [88.19.80.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 059749C51E5; Thu, 12 May 2011 00:49:28 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <947F3D89-1ED8-4F83-917B-8317DA15831B@it.uc3m.es>
From: Jose Manuel Camacho Camacho <jcamacho@it.uc3m.es>
To: Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1105110132490.3991@lakka.kapsi.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 00:49:28 +0200
References: <06B61955-CA9F-4CE7-9DA3-6DA8ECF6CD07@cisco.com> <4DC90101.50403@it.uc3m.es> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1105110132490.3991@lakka.kapsi.fi>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.5.0.1024-18130.002
Cc: rrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] Next topic?
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 11 May 2011 22:49:34 -0000

I guess there are some potential advantages in deploying multipath  
inter-domain routing. For instance, currently each border router  
forwards the traffic for a prefix through the same next AS. Balancing  
through two different next ASes it is not possible without re- 
advertising and sending the control plane to reconverge. Using  
multipath the balancing could be done even in a fine granularity (e.g.  
per packet) so that,

	- Different treatment (e.g. regarding QoS) could be provided per  
packet/flow, relaying traffic to a better provider (likely to have a  
higher pricing) and charging more money to the customers.
	- The latter may enable pricing and services competition.
	- Egress traffic engineering could be decoupled from the routing  
advertisement, forwarding to an upstream provider or another should be  
transparent to downstream customer ASes if they all the paths are  
advertised beforehand.
	- Congestion control may be more flexible for ISPs.

Thinking of future architectures, the case of multipath-aware  
transport protocols would let some or full control of the path  
selection to final hosts. It is not likely that ISPs go for this, but  
theoretically failure detection, failure recovery and better  
congestion control should be possible in this scenario, since end- 
hosts can measure end-to-end performance easily.


Jose M. Camacho,   jcamacho@it.uc3m.es, www.uc3m.es
+34916248795



El 11/05/2011, a las 0:36, Sampo Syreeni escribió:

> On 2011-05-10, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>
>> What about doing some work in multi-path routing in the inter- 
>> domain? i.e. enabling a router to use multiple paths with potential  
>> different characteristics to forward packets across domains. Would  
>> people find this topic interesting?
>
> I'd guess they would, since the idea is so old and also  
> underexploited. But does it bring in real extra value? I.e. does  
> anybody know whether multipath routing could significantly increase  
> the total utilization of the routing fabric, either now or under  
> some theoretically founded future situation?
>
> If nobody knows, a preliminary study could be IRTF material.
> -- 
> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - decoy@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
> +358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> rrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg