> From: William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>
> I have a notion for a "routing" protocol
I'm glad you put the 'routing' in quotations, because to me, 'routing' is i)
the _selection of paths_, and ii) the distribution of the information needed
to select paths.
I'm not sure what definition other people are using, but it might be useful
to come up with a standard one to prevent confusion.
> which manages link changes through dynamic re-addressing and multiply
> addressing hosts. By and large the addresses change so that the
> trivially aggregable routes don't have to. Not just at the host level
> but all the way downstream from the link change.
If I understand you properly, this is a way of dealing with topology changes
by re-numbering things? (To use the definition of 'routing' above, you
wouldn't need to propogate new information, because the old data would still
be valid - it's just that the things the old information would apply to have
changed?)
I need to go away and think about this for a while before I can have some
really solid reaction, but off the top of my head I wonder if the work
involved in keeping up with the changing addresses isn't as much (or possibly
more) work than the usual approach. TANSTAAFL, after all...
> Even bumps automatic resizing requirements upstream so that over time
> any given router offers exactly one route outward which automatically
> aggregates with the route its upstream already holds.
Err, routing (in the sense given at the top) is trivial when there's only one
path ("its upstream"). It's finding/selecting paths in arbitrary graphs with
lots of alternate paths (i.e. ones with lots of 'cycles', to use the
graph-theory term) which is the hard case.
> It does require a new suite of transport protocols
> ...
> the odds of ever reaching deployment on an approach which requires us
> to abandon TCP and UDP are not good?
That's infeasible; you can't require changing all hosts. You need to see if
you can come up with some approach that avoids that.
(E.g. if we have location-identity separatation deployed, you could hide the
new locators from the hosts.)
> Are you game to flesh it out and see how far we can run with it
Right at the moment, I personally don't have any spare time/energy. But you
should think about it (and try and write something); even if it's not usable
directly, there might be some aspects that could be useful to other designs.
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
