<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16735" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>Bill,</DIV>
<DIV>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". </DIV>
<DIV>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 :-(</DIV>
<DIV>Routing technology could need some big push everywhere :-)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Heiner</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In einer eMail vom 11.11.2008 21:39:36 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
bill@herrin.us:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Hi
Folks,<BR><BR>I'm trying to put together a more or less concise summary of
the<BR>general architectures we've discussed here these past couple
years.<BR>This is not a comparison of specific proposals (which Robin
Whittle<BR>has done an excellent job of) but rather a summary of the universe
of<BR>general strategies we've looked at and haven't resolutely
rejected.<BR>I'd appreciate your constructive
criticism:<BR><BR>http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures.html<BR><BR><BR>Particular
answers I'm interested in:<BR><BR>1. Have I overlooked any viable approaches
to the problem? If so, what are they?<BR><BR>2. Have I overlooked any
architectural elements? I'm looking for<BR>architectural elements here, not
engineering issues. For example, I<BR>left out path-MTU issues because that's
a "how do we shoehorn this<BR>into IPv4 of IPv6" engineering issue. It's only
relevant in an<BR>engineering compatibility context. Obviously engineering
compatibility<BR>issues will greatly inform the final architecture, but that's
not what<BR>I'm after in this document.<BR><BR>3. Do you see any areas where I
could offer a more clear description?<BR>How would you word it?<BR><BR>4. Have
I listed anything for which we have a strong consensus that we<BR>can discard
the approach from consideration due to some uncorrectable<BR>defect which is
obvious even without an engineering viability study?<BR>By strong consensus, I
mean "nearly unanimous."<BR><BR><BR>Thanks in advance,<BR>Bill
Herrin<BR><BR><BR>-- <BR>William D. Herrin ................
herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us<BR>3005 Crane Dr.
...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/><BR>Falls Church, VA
22042-3004<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>rrg mailing
list<BR>rrg@irtf.org<BR>https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>