Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Sat, 02 January 2010 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <tony.li@tony.li>
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 82AF93A67B5 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jan 2010 17:24:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.627
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.627 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DATE_IN_PAST_24_48=1.627]
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 ETBCOkA0LnLx for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jan 2010 17:24:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from QMTA13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.59.243]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9F13A6905 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 1 Jan 2010 17:24:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from OMTA20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.71]) by QMTA13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id QR141d0091YDfWL5DRQplx; Sat, 02 Jan 2010 01:24:49 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([173.58.189.47]) by OMTA20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id QRRd1d00211o0hH3gRRfUP; Sat, 02 Jan 2010 01:25:53 +0000
Message-ID: <4B3CD2BD.80209@tony.li>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:35:09 -0800
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: HeinerHummel@aol.com
References: <cba.4df3b8d5.386bf34d@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <cba.4df3b8d5.386bf34d@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rrg@irtf.org, zhangwei734@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [rrg] Aggregatable EIDs
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: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 01:24:49 -0000

Hi Heiner,

>     So, during this tunneling phase, it seems like the database is
>     O(N^2) in
>     the number of possible links.
> 
>  No.  Take an OSPF-network with N  nodes and with n EBGP-TARA-nodes 
> (N>>n) being the interfaces to the outside internet. It will contribute 
> approx. 2n to 3n loose links which interconnect these n 
> EBGP-TARA-nodes(assuming that this ISP network doesn't want to disclose 
> any knowledge about its internal topological structure). And this is 
> true in general:   if there are n nodes, the computation of the 
> interconnecting links will determine about 2n to 3n links.


But that implies that your external routing will be massively suboptimal 
with respect to other proposals where you can tunnel directly to the ETR.


> Suppose that a geopatch has only a single TARA-router in it.  It then
> becomes the decapsulator for all TARA traffic arriving into that
> geopatch.  Who pays for this router?  Who pays to deliver traffic from
> this router to the destination access ISP?
>  
> What is precisely the scenario ? You pressume that the destination EID 
> has a TARA-locator, being put into the DNS by some non-TARA-router ????:-(


No, again, there's a single TARA-router.  I'm interested in the topology 
and routing internal to the geopatch.  This is the problematic area for 
all geo-aggregation proposals.


> Again, if the TARA-router is not part of the interconnect and all local
> ISPs do not participate in the interconnect, then you would seem to have
> a connectivity issue.
>  
> Again, the horse must come before the carriage - or do I 
> misunderstanding something?


One of us certainly does.  ;-)  There must be some local interconnect. 
This is where the economic issues come into play.


Tony