Heiner,
I have mostly been ignoring your over-the-top assertions about your
solution and about other solutions. However, Having also been there, I
would have to disagree with yoru description of PNNI topology aggregation.
THere is no evidence that it is "the wrong way." That is your personal
opinion.
Networks of the scale that would have given evidence on the topic were
never constructed. Due, frankly, to IP and MPLS being better tools with
lower complexity than ATM for the overall problem space.
You are welcome to your opinion about the likely correctness of what the
WG adopted. But please do not confuse that opinion with verified fact
(as in "know for sure.")
Yours,
Joel
On 5/24/2011 3:53 AM, heinerhum...@aol.com wrote:
In einer eMail vom 23.05.2011 10:04:24 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit
schreibt i...@riken.jp:
I think many people agrees with the host number scalability issue,
since many research challenges are ongoing and industries may
support it.
The later routing issue is only my own idea, and I cannot find any
research paper discussing it other than ATM PNNI.
ikop,
ATM PNNI did try Topology Aggregation, but it was done the wrong way. I
know for sure because I was part of the PNNI working group.
Heiner
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
