Subject: [RRG] NIRA-pdf: Topology that follows addressing

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:05:46 EST

The following pdf:
 
_http://www.hummel-research.de/nira.pdf_ 
(http://www.hummel-research.de/nira.pdf)  
 
shows all I have been knowing since I have been writing  emails to RRG  plus 
more which I worked out while writing this document during the last few  days.
 
You will certainly recognize a) what is typical for hierarchical networks,  
and b) the fundamental difference wrt all hierarchical node concepts, from  
Nimrod, via PNNI up to Brian's newest slides.

Heiner

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:55:28 -0500 (EST)

> From: [email-masked]

    > all hierarchical node concepts, from Nimrod, via PNNI up to Brian's
    > newest slides.

Just a brief historical note to point out that there were other hierarchical
node things before these, including OSPG and IS-IS; the earliest one I know of
is a proposed "area" extension to the so-called 'new' ARPANet routing (I have
a ref if anyone cares). If anyone knows of an earlier one, I'd be interesting
in hearing of it, so I can add credits for it.

	Noel

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:42:03 -0800

> in hearing of it, so I can add credits for it.

ISO-IGRP happened around/before the time of OSPF. It had a 3 level  
hierarchy, the lowest using system-ids, where you could get mobility  
like you did using IS-IS for CLNS within an area, the middle hierarchy  
which was a 2-byte area-id, explicitly advertised as a DV protocol,  
and the final level which was a longest-match prefix level which used  
the rest of the high-order bits of the address (the NSAP address).

Authors were Len Bosak, Jim Forester, and Paulina Knibbe.

Dino

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:49:19 -0500 (EST)

> From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>

    >> other hierarchical node things before these

    > Was that before or after DECnet areas?

DECnet was Destination-Vector, though, not map-based, right? By "hierarchical
node things" I thought were were talking of hierarchical map-based systems.

	Noel

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:46:41 +1300

> node things" I thought were were talking of hierarchical map-based systems.

Level 1 of DECnet was certainly DV. I don't know how they handled the
Level 2 (i.e. area) routing. Externally, it sure looked like a map.

    Brian