Subject: Re: [rrg] Locator: routing scalability

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 04:30:22 EDT

In einer eMail vom 15.05.2009 04:03:34 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

>  > Does locator have to facilitate routing with its structure?
> >  
> > Toni
> 
> I have the same answer.
> Yes it  must.
> With strategy C such that by 90 % a single table-offset (i.e. as  by the  
> locator) retrieves the next hop.
> 
>  Heiner

The next hop is a neighbor node. What is the easiest case to  retrieve it 
from locator? Locator containing it.
So here's next question I  have the pleasure to ask our attentive peers:
Must locator structure show  explicit topology/reachability/routability?
Toni,
The locator  according to TARA (strategy C) would indicate the  
destination's geographical square degree patch, thereof the right square minute  patch, 
thereof the right square second patch. This is the entire locator  
structure (wrt the dest.).
A transit router whose own square degree patch doesn't match the  
destination's square degree patch would use that one to offset a table for  
retrieving the next hop.
Otherwise one could say: proceed as well with the square minute/ square  
second part of the locator so that only one  single table-offset is needed  in 
 every case (plus up to three compares). However this is also a  question 
of memory optimization. That's why I once backed up by saying :  otherwise it 
will take three table lookups.
 
Heiner