> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. Noel Chiappa [mailto:jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu]
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 5:13 PM
> To: irtf-rr@puck.nether.net
> Cc: jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu
> Subject: Re: Evolution and the routing architecture
>
>
> > From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org>
>
> >> 1) Topology element naming.
> >> 2) Topology information distribution.
> >> 3) Path computation.
> >> 4) Path setup.
> >> 5) User packet forwarding.
>
[snip]
>
> I think my "list of subsystems" is *the* fundamental model of how all
> routing systems more or less have to work. Of course, some designs have
> lumped more than one phase together in a single mechanism (all DV/PV
> systems mingle 2, 3 and to some degree 4) - but those elements are all
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> still there.
I'd like to make two comments to this:
1) The above component list is correct for topology information
distribution routing paradigm only. That is, in my opinion, it
limits us to the evolutionary approach -- "revolutionary" means
something else to me.
2) I guess Curtis was arguing against word "path" here. "Path"
sounds too "end-2-end-ish" (even taking into consideration that
it can look very different at different nodes along the data
path) and, hence, it's quite a stretch, I think, to say that
DV nodes, for example, do "*path* setup."
-- dima.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT