RE: Numbering Exchange Protocol (NEP) ID.

"Raymond Burkholder" <ray@oneunified.net> Tue, 12 December 2017 12:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@oneunified.net>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F72128D40 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 04:36:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kQyk8FnbXKWb for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 04:36:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.oneunified.net (mail1.oneunified.net [63.85.42.215]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30A1E126B6D for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 04:36:52 -0800 (PST)
X-OneUnified-MailScanner-Watermark: 1513687007.96395@iEDLDqdRdG1jOv8mkSyYcQ
X-OneUnified-MailScanner-From: ray@oneunified.net
X-OneUnified-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-OneUnified-MailScanner-ID: vBCCahOg020614
X-OneUnified-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
Received: from BM1QVSL12420 (mail1.oneunified.net [63.85.42.215]) by mail1.oneunified.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id vBCCahOg020614 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:36:44 GMT
From: Raymond Burkholder <ray@oneunified.net>
To: rtgwg@ietf.org
References: <CAFsaiiNV67Y82krAbfj4F4ZuNKXcU9gCMJUmdHkqt8hOa0QqHA@mail.gmail.com> <AM4PR0401MB2241409628958946A389E622BD370@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <9d42b742-b253-4755-ad1f-a619172b57d2@oneunified.net> <AM4PR0401MB2241D4EE7BEC7A82E0981494BD340@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR0401MB2241D4EE7BEC7A82E0981494BD340@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Subject: RE: Numbering Exchange Protocol (NEP) ID.
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 08:36:48 -0400
Message-ID: <654c01d37345$e150c160$a3f24420$@oneunified.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQL542sUwnoe02oO/PUiferJEWWJcAJi43sJAfGEwFcCPpQkcKC+LF+Q
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/PHWgtvQaGZFN1cmIe2e1fbHTXpg>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:36:55 -0000

> > Shortest path may no longer win, but the path established locally based
> upon global parameters provided by neighbors as well as a central
authority.
> 
> NEP does not uses the shortest path, it learns full topology information
and
> then decide which route (path) is the best at the moment based on the
total
> route bandwidth, total route delay, and the no. of hops, there is no need
for
> other protocols or a central authority.
> 

Hmm, sounds like the 'bees knees', as some else mentioned elsewhere, not too
long ago.

Sorry, I missed seeing the documentation on the algorithm.  

I am new to finding my way around.  Where would I be able to find the latest
notes and information on how this works?


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.