Noel, I think I know Tsuchiya's works (Landmark, Pip)
reasonably well but I can see a big difference
between Landmark/Nimrod on one side and TRAP
on the other side -- Antonov is a strong (the
strongest?) proponent of the e2e principle and
his TRAP is much closer to the "pure IP". Keywords
like "source-based routing", "state in the core"
(anything "flow-ish" or "circuit-ish"), etc.,
are indicators of the absolute evil to him.
-- dima.> -----Original Message----- > From: J. Noel Chiappa [mailto:jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 7:12 PM > To: irtf-rr@puck.nether.net > Cc: jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu > Subject: RE: mobility -> aggregation (TRAP?) > > > > 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