From 5018996d49a4ad6dd85c03143538e41abbd9b7db Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Arceliar Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 14:26:55 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Update about.md --- about.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/about.md b/about.md index 33ce952..f6b91d6 100644 --- a/about.md +++ b/about.md @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ A form of locator/identifier separation (similar in goal to [LISP](https://en.wi Locators are used to approximate the distance between nodes in the network, where the approximate distance is the length of a real worst-case-scenario path through the network. This is (arguably) easier to secure and requires less information about the network than commonly used routing schemes. -While not technically a [compact routing scheme](https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2309), tests on real-world networks suggest that routing in this style incurs stretch comparable to the name-dependent compact routing scheme designed for static networks. +While not technically a [compact routing scheme](https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2309), tests on real-world networks suggest that routing in this style incurs stretch comparable to the name-dependent compact routing schemes designed for static networks. Compared to compact routing schemes, Yggdrasil appears to have smaller average routing table sizes, works on dynamic networks, and is name-independent. It currently lacks the provable bounds of compact routing schemes, and there's a serious argument to be made that it cheats by stretching the definition of some of the above terms, but the main point to be emphasized is that *we're not looking for formal proofs and definitions, we just want something efficient in real networks*. In that sense, Yggdrasil seems to be competitive on paper, and working well in practice so far.