Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems

HeinerHummel@aol.com Thu, 18 February 2010 19:27 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 100A028C16C for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:27:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.161
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.161 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.977, BAYES_40=-0.185, 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 sT271tmW9hLD for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:27:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imr-mb01.mx.aol.com (imr-mb01.mx.aol.com [64.12.207.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D901028C168 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:27:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (imo-ma04.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.139]) by imr-mb01.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o1IJTPdO001910; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:29:25 -0500
Received: from HeinerHummel@aol.com by imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id 2.be2.66151d2e (43887); Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:29:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from magic-m02.mail.aol.com (magic-m02.mail.aol.com [172.21.172.73]) by cia-dc04.mx.aol.com (v127.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIADC048-ab6f4b7d9510b4; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:29:20 -0500
From: HeinerHummel@aol.com
Message-ID: <ef46.5ae6582a.38aeef10@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:29:20 -0500
To: paul@jakma.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_ef46.5ae6582a.38aeef10_boundary"
X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5021
X-AOL-ORIG-IP: 95.91.134.11
X-AOL-IP: 172.21.172.73
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: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:27:52 -0000

 
Paul,
While I am still waiting for you to convince me, that DV is superior to  
Dijkstra, let me expand on the 10x10 chessboard grid example where you have  
184758 shortest path from the left upper corner A to the right lower corner  
B.
Grab one of them! Then envision that each of its 20 best next hops  might 
be replaced by a 3-hops-detour: 
1 hop to some more remote node, followed by 2 (explicitly enforced) best  
next hops, where each of which must not go back to where the packet come  
from.So there will be "20 over 1" = 20 paths with just one such detour.  
Additionally there will be "20 over 2" paths with 2 such detours, etc.  etc.
Altogether there will be 2^20 = 1048576 paths which include 0,1,2,...19 or  
20 such detours.
 
184758 x 1048576  =193,730,707,456. I.e.by enabling such little  obviously 
smallest possible detours
there are 193,730,707,456 paths from A to B.
No comes the worst: With DV you won't get to know that any such detouring  
path exists !!
 
You have no rearview mirror. DV restricts the number of routes  enormously 
and  prevents traffic engineering which deserves its  name.
 
Heiner  
 
 
 
 
In einer eMail vom 14.02.2010 21:11:21 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
HeinerHummel@aol.com:

 
In einer eMail vom 14.02.2010 17:00:37 Westeuropäische Normalzeit  schreibt 
paul@jakma.org:

Hi,

I've only just stumbled across your TARA stuff, and am  reading 
through your mails. Re "Forget DV!", and double-plus to  that!


Well, then try to convince me while viewing the following:
I was told that an average route  contains about 20 hops. Imagine a  
chessboard like grid however with 10x10 rows and columns instead of 8x8.  Imagine 
each DFZ-router has only 4 neighboring DFZ-routers (which is  certainly less 
than in reality).Imagine the ingress at the upper left corner  and the 
egress at the lower right corner. Then there are (20 over 10) =  20x19x...x11 / 
(1x2x3....x10) = 184 758 shortest paths in-between.
 
Consider that there are more than 10,000 egress DFZ-routers ! 184 756  
times 10 000 = 1 847 560 000 shortest routes. However there are  multitudes 
thereof, if you envisioned (loopfree of course) detours as well!  And if you 
envisioned that DFZ routers have more than 4 neighbor nodes  (BTW, can anyone 
provide useful valid figures so that we can discuss density  issues and 
aspects?)
 
What a nonsense of algorithm !!! DV is a holy cow from the early  90's!
 
Please convince me, why provisioning and managing all these routes would  
be reasonable? 
Particularly, when you can do it without!  
 
Heiner