[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] some musings on PI v. PA, and assumptions, requirements, and tradeoffs
On 2007-07-15 04:55, Bruce Curtis wrote:
...
Another possibility to publish the the information is to put the
multiple destination addresses in each packet. Of course the cost is
sending the extra bits. It seems to me that for devices in the core of
the network the cost of publishing the info this way is mostly
independent of the total number of routes or paths in the network but
would instead be dependent on the number of destination addresses that
would need to be supported per packet.
It seems to me that Six/One (and to some extent shim6) is simply
a compressed form of this - a packet contains enough info to
recover the compressed into, which is the set of addresses. The only
question is who's got a copy of the compression state.
As you have pointed out before an architecture based on multiple
destination addresses has it's own set of problems but it would allow
for a future where TE could be done in the core while as you mention
above the ability to do TE beyond the edge with other architectures can
be quite expensive.
You could do this neatly in IPv6 with a new form of routing header
which simply lists alternate destination addresses.
Brian
--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg