Re: RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement

Lloyd Wood wrote:

>>>(Fortunately, routers that know about links and know about routing
>>>tables can use the information regardless if it's useful.)
>>
>>Routers know out-of-band info about links, communicated as data already.
> 
> 
> and not as a MIB. My question is: why are endhost implementations so
> STUPID compared to routers in this respect, in not even knowing what
> they're immediately connected to and whether it's there or not?

Hosts that run routing software aren't. If you have a multihomed host, 
run routing on that host. Embed the functionality of a router in the 
endpoint, and call it a day - we did 5 years ago:

  "Dynamic Host Routing for Production Use of Developmental Networks"
J. Touch and T. Faber, Proc. ICNP '97, Atlanta, Oct. 1997, pp. 285-292. 
(www.isi.edu/touch/pubs/)

 > That
> end-to-end argument corollary about putting complexity at the edges
> and keeping the midpoints simple just doesn't get borne out in
> practice, does it?

The end and middle are a matter of perspective; you want the middle 
(other links) to configure your endpoint (a router inside the end 
system, which is also your host). This isn't new, and it isn't a 
conflict with E2E either.

>>What appears to be desired here is:
>>
>>	a realtime MIB for link state
>>	a routing protocol that reads and reacts to the MIBs on
>>	microsecond timescales
> 
> 1) MIBs aren't realtime. Not so sure they're desirable, either.

IP isn't realtime either.

> 2) local implementations don't use MIBs to talk to themselves.
>    An endhost using a MIB to tell itself about its own link
>    interfaces? I don't think so.

How do routers do it? Why is this new?

Joe



_______________________________________________
pilc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pilc
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html
http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/