[rr-fs] RE: [Irtf-rr] New subgroup being formed

[Dmitri Krioukov]

yes, you're getting it right. not that i'm not
*interested* in policy aspects, but griffin's
stuff is way ahead in this direction.

on the other hand, there is definitely a
scalability issue associated with policies,
but i'm not sure if the time has arrived
to say anything mathematically rigorous
on this regard. i may be wrong though.
--
dima.
http://www.krioukov.net/~dima/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Passwaters [mailto:bjp at theinternetisfull.net]
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 2:31 PM
> To: Dmitri Krioukov
> Cc: avri at psg.com
> Subject: Re: [Irtf-rr] New subgroup being formed
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 01:28:05PM -0800, Dmitri Krioukov wrote:
>
> > > 3) Will there be any consideration to the policy aspects of routing
> > >    currently in use? The policy needs certainly seem to affect message
> > >    size,routing table absolute size in terms of memory usage and
> > >    computational power.
> >
> > as far as i know, policy aspects will be handled in a
> > different subgroup. at this point, it's an issue separable
> > from the fundamental scalability aspects of routing
> > (for fundamental aspect of policy routing, please see
> > tim griffin's works). at later stages, these two
> > efforts should be coordinated, of course...
>
> Just so I am clear (and forgive me if this too pedantic) you are
> interested
> in the routing algorithim and the basic protocol to get the information
> to the routing algorithim BUT not (at this point) policy route selection.
>
> I mention this because in the intro you mention BGP which to my
> mind encompasses
> a protocol, a routing algorthim and some pieces of policy enabling. Later
> you are only using the term routing algorithms  which is only one piece of
> this.  Again if all of this is clear to everyone but me just tell to move
> along :)
>
> Brad
>