[rrg] Summary of architectural solution space

[HeinerHummel at aol.com]

Bill,
I see most of my comments all over the years addressed by strategy B,  
however please specify what you mean by "perform plain old hierarchical  aggregation 
on the LOCs". 
I am afraid you mean Nimrod/PNNI topology aggregation to which I  formerly 
looked up with glee - but not anymore. During the last time I  praised 
Google-map, e.g. how a route from NY,Broadway, to Sausolito,  Main-Street, is drawn 
"across differently zoomed maps". But meanwhile I see that  Google-map cannot 
catch-up with TARA either: If you see the blue line passing  the entire US and 
you want to zoom closer, let's say at some place  half-way down, like Chicago, 
it cannot be done :-(
Routing technology could need some big push everywhere :-)
 
Heiner
 
 
In einer eMail vom 11.11.2008 21:39:36 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
bill at herrin.us:

Hi  Folks,

I'm trying to put together a more or less concise summary of  the
general architectures we've discussed here these past couple  years.
This is not a comparison of specific proposals (which Robin  Whittle
has done an excellent job of) but rather a summary of the universe  of
general strategies we've looked at and haven't resolutely  rejected.
I'd appreciate your constructive  criticism:

http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures.html


Particular  answers I'm interested in:

1. Have I overlooked any viable approaches  to the problem? If so, what are 
they?

2. Have I overlooked any  architectural elements? I'm looking for
architectural elements here, not  engineering issues. For example, I
left out path-MTU issues because that's  a "how do we shoehorn this
into IPv4 of IPv6" engineering issue. It's only  relevant in an
engineering compatibility context. Obviously engineering  compatibility
issues will greatly inform the final architecture, but that's  not what
I'm after in this document.

3. Do you see any areas where I  could offer a more clear description?
How would you word it?

4. Have  I listed anything for which we have a strong consensus that we
can discard  the approach from consideration due to some uncorrectable
defect which is  obvious even without an engineering viability study?
By strong consensus, I  mean "nearly unanimous."


Thanks in advance,
Bill  Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................  herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr.  ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA  22042-3004
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing  list
rrg at irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.irtf.org/pipermail/rrg/attachments/20081111/830e4dc0/attachment-0001.htm>