On 4 June 2010 at 16:41:15 Tony Li sent: > > > But RRG's charter includes exploration of "addressing" problems. > > An "address" is used to determine forwarding operation. > > So it's natural to discuss forwarding issues here. Right? > > > Ummm... No, not in the full generality of how some people use that term. > > Again, we were chartered to discuss routing and addressing architecture. > Forwarding issues typically involve interesting questions about how you can > structure your FIB to minimize painful memory accesses, what type of memory > to use, how it should be interconnected to your processing element, how to > deal with ECMP, dealing with indirect next hops and the like. All of those > are out of scope. > > Regards, > Tony > > >
OK, I agree. But there is one certain point of intersection of addressing, forwarding and path selection: As clear an address shows a node's topological location, that much it facilitates hop by hop path selection to that node, says: decision making for forwarding, sequentially. So why not just embed next hops in an address: locator? _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
