IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems

Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> Sun, 14 February 2010 06:44 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@gmail.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 E9E9F28C0E8 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:44:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.46
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.139, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Iyk2d1PFP6mm for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:44:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f186.google.com (mail-iw0-f186.google.com [209.85.223.186]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52A3728C0FB for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:44:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwn16 with SMTP id 16so4620823iwn.10 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:46:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=kLrU8Ij8D2Zl1E55KZssenClGryGCB7cFYsyJH8tSNo=; b=Xn0JaTi6K+KN+fkRqimzM14S82JaMawmmpwlTQNL341/CDfaSWhsc217HEwtDCmHsl uexjUXP6CB0LwYnr2ol1oJDapKwVp3HrOOWQyBF3iyAPg5iFI8uoy893OGpn/7DK/exI Axi0pVP7jLwWPc5Zh3iFMI8v3/UCH6AZQsr4M=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=DRD+8sLd+f5dnS/I+e8Gocr4VlqBihCtS4R6ya5XJLwUwfyyypqsbkrMu46bqQDzB8 +B0mkfOyJc51TVQl1MGXseeOvx8RDa9aBHMOAy7nPI471X8B7jHkDmFY84+xrhiFGeHz ScgARhvR2UcFZ5lW8NumS+5hCIbXRJil8aUOo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com
Received: by 10.231.154.77 with SMTP id n13mr3768479ibw.11.1266129962719; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:46:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <8e0.658dad55.38a7d308@aol.com>
References: <8e0.658dad55.38a7d308@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 01:46:02 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1dfa002c9aa50c8a
Message-ID: <75cb24521002132246u76c2c645w5b547aa160b008a3@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: HeinerHummel@aol.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
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: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:44:44 -0000

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 5:03 AM,  <HeinerHummel@aol.com> wrote:

> loop: from PG1 to PG2 back to PG1. Today I see opposition against TARA
> because the network inside a geopatch might partition. Yes, this may happen.
> But dealing with partitions starts with getting from one partition to the
> other. And I can only offer a loop: out to some neighbor geopatch, from
> there back to the other partition of the own geopatch.

if all you know is PG1, no subnets/sublocators/identifiers, how does
pg2 know not to send traffic back the same link it came from?

(note this all seems pretty far out of rrg though)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email