[HECnet] Request for comments on subdividing area 9

[Cory Smelosky]

On 9 Jan 2013, at 07:56, Peter Lothberg <roll at Stupi.SE> wrote:

Hello!

The current way I allocate node numbers is in sequential order and it's =
getting tremendously messy and difficult to manage, so I am going to =
come up with a plan to divide things more cleanly and I'm looking for =
feedback.

Why is it messy? Putting administrative info in addresses that are
most likely network endpoints?

I'd just feel more organised if I grouped systems a bit more.


If we at some time in the future want to get the routing optimal there
is one limitation to remember. There is no topology information shared
between areas, so if a node in area 1 want's to talk to a node in 
area 2 and there are more than one link from area 1 to area 2 it will
pick the best (metric or router id) link to area 2, and it has no
information about what area router in area 2 is closest to the
destination node.

There'd only be one link to the rest of HECnet, everything else would connect to the primary area router.


An optimal HECnet has metrics (costs on links) and all nodes in the
same area..... Or one area is basically connecting all it's area
routers with for practical purposes infinite bandwidth.

--P



--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff!
http://gimme-sympathy.org/ My permanently-a-work-in-progress pet project.