Subject: [RRG] Agenda changes

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:30:29 -0700

Hi all,

Please note that there have been some small tweaks to the agenda.   
It's posted here:

http://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/RRG

We've added one more talk.  This necessitated shifting presentations  
around a bit and carving out 30 minutes from lunch and the design  
goals discussion.  We've also added some links to some other  
proposals that we were not able to include.

On the design goals, we're tossing out a strawman to start off the  
discussion.  We expect this to be highly contentious, as even the two  
of us haven't been able to get to consensus yet.  ;-)

Finally, Lixia has requested the right to replace the eFIT notes  
currently listed, so please defer reviewing that material for the  
moment.

See you soon,
Lixia & Tony

--
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: "Dmitri Krioukov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:22:37 -0700

i briefly looked through some points in some presentations for prague,
including olivier's.

olivier, i don't understand section 3.3 in your
http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~obo/papers/rrg.pdf where you say
that ASs need not necessarily be visible in interdomain routing,
and refer to HLP[32] as an alternative, but HLP proposes quite
opposite, routing on AS numbers as a starting point. so i wonder
what exactly you mean there? in fact, what if not ASs should be
visible in interdomain routing?

best,
--
dima.
http://www.caida.org/~dima/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> Of Tony Li
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:30 AM
> To: rrg
> Subject: [RRG] Agenda changes
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all,
>

---

From: Olivier Bonaventure <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:30:25 +0100

Dmitri,

> visible in interdomain routing?

The reference to HLP was not a way to indicate that HLP is working in
that way, it was meant to indicate that HLP had already proposed to
reduce the amount of AS level information. In HLP, there are roughly two
types of interconnections :
- customer provider links
- shared cost peering links

on customer-provider links, HLP behaves as a link state protocol and
routing is done on a per AS basis. on shared cost peering links, the AS
attached to the link will advertise a summarized AS path (containing
itself and the AS below its hierarchy). For example, if we consider the
topology below :

A ======== Z
|
B--D
|
C

A will advertise to Z that it can reach B, C and D but will not tell to
Z that D and C are "below" B in the hierarchy. With a localtor/id split
and if we manage to allocate locators automatically and hierarchically,
it should be possible for A to only advertise to Z the aggregated prefix
 locator containing its locators and the locators that it assigned to B,
D and C. In this case, no AS information would be advertised to Z.

Olivier