Subject: Re: [RRG] Convergence

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 07:42:35 EST

In einer eMail vom 04.12.2007 01:37:18 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

I should  remind folks that our 'problem' is a matter of research, not   
engineering.  
Tony

This is why my emails and proposal have been addressed to  RRG/IRTF.
 
Imho, LISP should go the usual way: have IETF-BOFs, initiate a LISP WG  
inside IETF. 
IRTF stands for research however.
Hence RRG should not ask in the first place about the backward  compatability
, instead AFTER having determined, independendly, what is the best  solution.
 
So far I did dispose all about the NIRA-concept which :
- eliminates the scalability problem: it reduces the routing table size  
immensely. It stops the routing churn:
In case any representative node went down the node the nearest among all  
nodes being BoundTo the failing node would take care if there were any "taking  
care on behalf of"-problems. A new update to the outside is only appropriate, 
if  the node who is in charge of some other has a distance > xyz to that 
failing  node.
 
-  enables faster packet forwarding by factor 20 (according to  Tony).
-  only needs the avaibility of longitude/latitude of the packet  destination 
in one way or the other
  (parameter, outer header,...) but no CONS and no cumbersome  config data. 
 
- by knowing the (sparsed) internet topology you can do QoS/policy routing  
much better than without.
  The goal should be not only as well as inside an OSPF-network but  even 
better (OSPF only knows to deal 
   with Dijkstra)  
 
- it enables to deal with the multihoming problem in a new way, as  well as 
with traffic balancing issues. 
 
I have been asked for providing a draft about this concept by several  
people.Where are their comments?
 
Heiner