Subject: RE: [IP-Optical] Joint Routing

From: "David Allan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:17:21 -0500

Mark:

The original purpose of my observation was discussing joint vs, sequential,
not centralized vs. distributed. This seems to be getting lost.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Mark Stewart [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Friday, October 27, 2000 11:42 AM
> To:	Allan, David [CAR:NS00:EXCH]
> Cc:	alchiu; 'Yakov Rekhter'; ip-optical; mpls; sc; xuyg; yxue
> Subject:	Re: [IP-Optical] Joint Routing
> 
> Hi Dave 
> 
> Well I certainly hope no one is proposing to mandate a centralized
> mechanism to implement joint routing. It's quite possible to do a source
> based solution which simply invokes dykstra twice instead of once and then
> has the same scaling and synchronization issues as OSPF. 
> 
> ciao 
> 
> mark 
> 
> David Allan wrote: 
> 
> 	  
> 
> 	True, they are separate concepts. Centralzied computing is A
> solution to the problem of ensuring a synchronized and authoriative view
> of the network which is what I would assume joint routing requires. So
> what I am really discussing is the scaling limitations that a synched and
> comprehensive network view has regardless of how the algorithm is
> implemented, especially as the dynamic behavior of the network increases
> with time. 
> 
> 	Dave 
> 
> 		-----Original Message----- 
> 	From:   Mark Stewart [SMTP:[email-masked]] 
> 	Sent:   Friday, October 27, 2000 11:02 AM 
> 	To:     Allan, David [CAR:NS00:EXCH] 
> 	Cc:     alchiu; 'Yakov Rekhter'; ip-optical; mpls; sc; xuyg; yxue 
> 	Subject:        Re: [IP-Optical] Joint Routing was RE: Optical link
> bundling. Was Re:  DraftMinutes From Pittsburgh 
> 
> 		Hi Dave 
> 
> 		Why are we equating joint routing with centralized
> computation? Few (if 
> 	any) members of the IETF would dispute that centralized computation
> has 
> 	nasty scaling problems; but I thought we were discussing joint
> routing. 
> 
> 		Mark 
> 
> 		<snip>
>