Subject: RE: Routing

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:47:16 -0500

> However, static routing to key locations locks you into those static
paths, 
> which maythen fail.  What now?

My assumption is those locations are minimal.  Forward to them is fast
lookup and high order bits.  Failover is not a function IMO of any
protocol but implementation.  But the protocol should have features
within it to permit failover.  

As a note I figured out how to completely failover TCP and SCTP and UDP
in implementation, and including all protocol context and state and
transfer that state in proprietary manner.  Hopefully I will get rich
:--).  But to do it in open source and public domain manner requires
protocol attributes.  The BU for MIPv6 is very close to provide this
either in router or host but not complete solution.

>Note that you can do dynamic routing to a key location (a landmark) and
then 
>dynamic routing from there, but you quite possibly lose out on more
optimal 
>paths.  I believe that someone has written a paper on just this, tho I
can't 
>confess to representing it.

This sounds very good.  Besides the macro view we also have to realize
we will not achieve perfection.

/jim