cwinfo/yggdrasil-network.github.io
5
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/cwinfo/yggdrasil-network.github.io.git synced 2024-11-10 04:20:27 +00:00
Code Releases Activity

Update 2018-07-17-world-tree.md

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Arceliar 2018-11-05 13:10:55 -06:00 committed by GitHub
parent db5ebfaf7d
commit 6daffb649b
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
_posts/2018-07-17-world-tree.md
View File

@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ To skip over the details, there are basically two aspects to consider that are r
First, compact routing schemes can be name-dependent or name-independent.
Name-dependent routing schemes assign an address (of some kind, not necessarily a familiar IP address) based on a node's location in the network.
Name-independent routing schemes place no requirements on a node's address, and treat it as some opaque identifier in a flat (i.e. non-subnetted) address space.
Secondly, compact routing schemes an either be a universal scheme, with strong guarantees on all possible network types, or they can be specific to certain network topologies.
Secondly, compact routing schemes can either be a universal scheme, with strong guarantees on all possible network types, or they can be specific to certain network topologies.
On paper, compact routing is essentially a solved problem: universal name-dependent routing schemes are known with worst case scenario performance guarantees that are basically equal to the best case scenario lower bounds proven by the mathematicians who do that sort of thing.
Furthermore, name-independent routing schemes are known with the same performance guarantees, albeit much worse observed performance *in practice* (still better than the guaranteed worst cases, but not by as much).