Re: (IPng 5000) Re: Last Call: IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture to Proposed Standard
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:08:28 -0800 (PST)
- Posted-date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:08:28 -0800 (PST)
>
>
> bill,
>
> i'm surprised by your remark.
> i thought you have been around long enough to understand this.
> we've been over all this before.
>
> the complexity of that computation is driven by two things -
> the cardinality of the set of visible nodes in the global topology graph,
> and the complexity of the topology connecting those nodes.
> (note that "node" here does not imply a router but whole networks).
>
> of these two things, we cannot readily control the edge topology of the
> graph, so we are only left with controlling the cardinality of the node set of
> the graph if we wish to influence that complexity.
>
> of course, you can argue that we don't need to care about the problem -
> that somehow processors will keep getting fast enough fast enough to
> retain reasonable convergence times.
>
> but then you are betting on a race between two exponentials -
> and are making the bet that the smaller exponent will win.
>
> i know *i* don't want to wager the future on that bet.
>
> -mo
My argument is that the basic premise that the assumptions wrt the
cardinality of the set of visable nodes in the topology graph
-may- be wrong. Other than that, I agree with you. Chalk it up
to a fit of Noel-Stev syndrome. With a bit of rest, I'm sure
it will pass. (and I do recommend "Small Forwarding Tables for
Fast Routing Lookup" from SigCom'97, which is one more reason why
I think these arguments just might be off)
--
--bill
