[rrg] Neglected RIB growth consideration

HeinerHummel@aol.com Sun, 14 February 2010 11:09 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 B924628C0E3 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 03:09:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.253
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.345, 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 OCKsadA2LdRQ for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 03:09:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imr-ma06.mx.aol.com (imr-ma06.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.142]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C0828C0D6 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 03:09:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (imo-ma04.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.139]) by imr-ma06.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o1EBBFck032165 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:11:15 -0500
Received: from HeinerHummel@aol.com by imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id 9.d2d.60a9efeb (55765) for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:11:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from magic-d01.mail.aol.com (magic-d01.mail.aol.com [172.19.161.129]) by cia-md05.mx.aol.com (v127.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMD056-d9d54b77da511f; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:11:13 -0500
From: HeinerHummel@aol.com
Message-ID: <161fb.59747c4b.38a93451@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:11:13 -0500
To: rrg@irtf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_161fb.59747c4b.38a93451_boundary"
X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5021
X-AOL-ORIG-IP: 95.91.134.11
X-AOL-IP: 172.19.161.129
X-AOL-SENDER: HeinerHummel@aol.com
Subject: [rrg] Neglected RIB growth consideration
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: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:09:57 -0000

All submitted mainstream proposals are DV-based, i.e. have to maintain  
RIBs. From the newest discussion I have learned: None of them has  considered 
that the growing number of paths is also and even a  more severe scalability 
problem than the FIB growth. None of them does  offer any solution, and 
indeed, I think, any restriction wouldn't be good (like  controlling by 
pricing).   
 
TARA isn't based on DV, i.e. it doesn't need a classical FIB (instead some  
alternative tables) and no RIB at all. Instead of a RIB, some  
zoom-topologies of the internet need to be maintained. Without any costs,  an  
astronomically greater number of routes can be provisioned  hereby.
 
Hence TARA is the only solution that has addressed the RIB growth issue  
(-implicitly, i.e. by no extra doing). I cannot see how any of the mainstream  
proposals will deal with this issue.
 
Heiner