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
- 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