Re: [rrg] Locator: routing scalability
HeinerHummel@aol.com Fri, 15 May 2009 08:28 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 A280F3A6AA4 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2009 01:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.463
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.276, BAYES_20=-0.74, 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 rv3K4Lq-OAbj for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2009 01:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A7CE3A6A0A for <rrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2009 01:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo-da04.mx.aol.com (imo-da04.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.202]) by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n4F8UUQY015741; Fri, 15 May 2009 04:30:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from HeinerHummel@aol.com by imo-da04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v40_r1.5.) id a.d49.46c7fbdc (42805); Fri, 15 May 2009 04:30:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: HeinerHummel@aol.com
Message-ID: <d49.46c7fbdc.373e821e@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 04:30:22 -0400
To: irtf@tonistoev.info, rrg@irtf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1242376222"
X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5021
Subject: Re: [rrg] Locator: routing scalability
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, 15 May 2009 08:28:59 -0000
In einer eMail vom 15.05.2009 04:03:34 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt irtf@tonistoev.info: > > Does locator have to facilitate routing with its structure? > > > > Toni > > I have the same answer. > Yes it must. > With strategy C such that by 90 % a single table-offset (i.e. as by the > locator) retrieves the next hop. > > Heiner The next hop is a neighbor node. What is the easiest case to retrieve it from locator? Locator containing it. So here's next question I have the pleasure to ask our attentive peers: Must locator structure show explicit topology/reachability/routability? Toni, The locator according to TARA (strategy C) would indicate the destination's geographical square degree patch, thereof the right square minute patch, thereof the right square second patch. This is the entire locator structure (wrt the dest.). A transit router whose own square degree patch doesn't match the destination's square degree patch would use that one to offset a table for retrieving the next hop. Otherwise one could say: proceed as well with the square minute/ square second part of the locator so that only one single table-offset is needed in every case (plus up to three compares). However this is also a question of memory optimization. That's why I once backed up by saying : otherwise it will take three table lookups. Heiner
- Re: [rrg] Locator: routing scalability HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] Locator: routing scalability Toni Stoev
- Re: [rrg] Locator: routing scalability HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] Locator: routing scalability Toni Stoev
- [rrg] RANGER(S) Templin, Fred L