[88760] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Meyer)
Thu Feb 16 13:41:58 2006
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:41:32 -0800
From: David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20060216012549.GA30488@vaf-lnx1.cisco.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> It's a little more basic than that. I'm no graph theory expert and reading
> such stuff gives me a headache, but I do understand that abstraction
> (summarization or aggregation) of routing information is only possible if=
the
> identifiers that are used for numbering network elements (the
> "addresses") are assigned in a manner that is isomporphic to
> the network topology. TLi started writing a good paper which
> described this in terms of sets and subsets; unfortunately, I
> don't think it ever saw the light of day).=20
One of the first things I ever learned from Yakov (at the
first IETF I ever attended):
"Addressing can follow topology or topology can follow
addressing. Choose one."
He has since pointed out that this may not be strictly
true when considering VPN technologies.
Dave
--vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD9MdcORgD1qCZ2KcRAmHzAJ497Vm0k1TE8zTM5TBCuCFyL1HQdQCfWOCp
TiSuKi1nnGM0jQf8YokPgEE=
=Fx+8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd--