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
pilc@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pilc
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html
http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 09 2002 - 17:17:45 EDT