> From: "Dmitri Krioukov" <dima@krioukov.net>
> The whole thing (of not even allowing static addressing -- only
> topologically significant, totally dynamic one) was explicitly proposed
> first time (up to my knowledge) in the Antonov's TRAP
Umm, this is quite an old idea, actually. I don't know the very first thing to
propose it, but it was certainly in e.g. Landmark Routing, by Paul Francis/
Tsuchiya/<token-of-the-month>, from about 10 years back.
> But then, he's also strange, isn't he? :)
Perhaps - but anytime Vadim disagreed with me, I always paid close attention,
because he often (usually?) had a point I had missed...
> But then again the aggregation question comes up. The natural thing to
> do next would be to dynamically aggregate
Again, there has been prior work in this area (dynamic assignment of
aggregation naming boundaries). Many moons ago Martha Steenstrup pointed
me at some PhD thesis about it, but alas I don't have a ref handy.
Noel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT