I thought the compact routing paper was very interesting in light of all of the attention we have given to the scalability and stability problems associated with inter domain routing.
It seems to make a lot of sense to find short, rather than shortest paths. It is amazing to me how small routing tables can become by relaxing the shortest path requirement.
I wonder if this paper doesn't understate the significance of compact routing. The paper points out that even with compact routing, we are still stuck with linear growth in routing update messages. Certainly there is good reason to be concerned about the growth of update messages. But we are stuck with that problem anyway.
Is compact routing really an awesome idea? It may be. You can enforce an upper bound on stretch. This means that you can limit stretch as much as you want to. In other words, if you are concerned about stretch (no stretch means shortest path) just increase routing table size accordingly. If you get concerned about routing table size, just increase stretch accordingly. The nice thing is that very small amounts of stretch result in substantial routing table size savings.
No comments:
Post a Comment