Hi Tony, Queue closed so a question on email.
First: I think this is good work. I don't know how we document this to experiment with it. I suspect it needs some pretty sophisticated simulation because the rate of deployment is going to be such that the operators will not want to experiment in live networks. It seems (to me) to be in scope for RTGWG and is something that we should seek to stablise. Building somewhat on Keyur's question, I'm interested in the aspects of scaling. I think you have good consideration of routing protocol scaling and, as you say, hierarchy is our friend. You also note that ISLs are a limited resource. Obviously (?) nothing anyone can do will squeeze more data onto a link. So (again, as you say) TE is important. Have you thought about how well the TE mechanisms will scale? Although the orbits are well-known (plus or minus meteor strikes), and although (as you say) a ground station only needs to know about its overhead stripes, and although you are not considering transit in this architecture, it seems to me that the computations will be more complicated being time-based, and I'm not sure that they are easily stable when pre-computed. I also wonder, given how constrained ISLs may be, about the need for "centralised" computation to ensure that load is properly balanced. Cheers, Adrian _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
