Subject: [nemo] RE: RRH (was: Re: BU storms when MR does RO on behalf of LFN's)

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:48:25 +0200

> 
> > as well. So we need 4 bindings, which have to be synchronized while
> > maintained individually.
> 
> I don't understand, what's the problem with being synchronized while
> being maintained individually?

When the MR moves into the new tree, all MRs above need to bind with all
CNs at that time, so that they reflect a same state of the tree. Yet,
they are managed by individual routers. 

> > The BU storm problem mentioned here is *not* that it would be wrong
> > to do RO from the first MR as opposed to LFN (where did you read
> > that?). It's about more then the minimum BUs being sent, and BUs
> > being sent by the wrong MRs.
> 
> I read in the taxonomy draft that having an MR to send BU's on behalf
of
> the hosts in the subtree has a cost: BU storm (and 4 other costs too);
> section 6.2.

Right, it's talking about the subtrees, not the MR MNPs. But maybe we
can make it even clearer.

> (BTW, what do you call "processing BU's recursively" and "recursive
>   fashion"?  What module/part/function calls upon itself?  I don't see
>   any recursion in processing several incoming BU's and CN _iterating_
>   through the BC to build a RH; anyways, be it iteration or recursion,
I
>   don't see the computation burden...)

If you take the MR tree as a system, you'll see it. Also, if you look at
the process in the CN that goes through its BCEs. All this is
unnecessary complexity.

Pascal