As per Relevance of the word hierarchical, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group D.
Request for Comments: 1668
Category: Informational T.
Cisco
Y.
T.J. Watson Research Center, IBM Corp
August 1994
Unified Routing Requirements for
Status of this
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution
this memo is unlimited
This document was submitted to the IETF IPng area in response to
1550. Publication of this document does not imply acceptance by
IPng area of any ideas expressed within. Comments should
submitted to the big-internet@munnari.oz.au mailing list
1. IPng
The following list provides requirements on the IPng from
perspective of the Unified Routing Architecture, as describe in
1322.
1. To provide scalable routing, IPng addressing must provide
for topologically significant address assignment
2. Since it is hard to predict how routing information will
aggregated, the IPng addressing structure should impose as
preconditions as possible on the number of levels in the hierarchy
Specifically, the number of levels must be allowed to be
at different parts in the hierarchy. Further, the levels must
be statically tied to particular parts (fields) in the
information
3. Hop-by-hop forwarding algorithm requires IPng to carry
information in the Network Layer header to unambiguously
a particular next hop. Unless mechanisms to
context-sensitive forwarding tables and provide
forwarding are defined, the requirement assumes the presence
full hierarchical addresses. Therefore, IPng packet format
provide efficient determination of the full
Estrin, Li & Rekhter [Page 1]
RFC 1668 Unified Routing Requirements for IPng August 1994
destination address
4. Hierarchical address assignment should not imply
hierarchical routing. Therefore, IPng should carry
information to provide forwarding along both hierarchical
non-hierarchical routes
5. The IPng packet header should accommodate a "routing label"
"route ID". This label will be used to identify a particular
to be used for packet forwarding by each router
Two types of routing labels should be supported: "strong"
"weak".
When a packet carries a "strong" routing label and a router
not have a FIB with this label, the packet is discarded (and
error message is sent back to the source).
When a packet carries a "weak" routing label and a router does
have a FIB with this label, the packet should be forwarded via
"default" FIB, i.e., according to the destination address.
addition, the packet should carry an indication that
along the path the desired routing label was unavailable
6. IPng should provide a source routing mechanism with the
capabilities (i.e., flexibility):
- Specification of either individual routers or collections
routers as the entities in the source route
- The option to indicate that two consecutive entities in
source route must share a common subnet in order for
source route to be valid
- Specification of the default behavior when the route
the next entry in the source route is unavailable
- The packet is discarded,
- The source route is ignored and the packet is forwarded
only on the destination address (and the packet header
indicate this action).
- A mechanism to verify the feasibility of a source route
Security
Security issues are not discussed in this memo
Estrin, Li & Rekhter [Page 2]
RFC 1668 Unified Routing Requirements for IPng August 1994
Authors'
Deborah
University of Southern
Computer Science Department, MC 0782
Los Angeles, California 90089-0782
Phone: (310) 740-4524
EMail: estrin@usc.
Tony
cisco Systems, Inc
1525 O'Brien
Menlo Park, CA 94025
EMail: tli@cisco.
Yakov
T.J. Watson Research Center IBM
P.O. Box 218
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Phone: (914) 945-3896
EMail: yakov@watson.ibm.
Estrin, Li & Rekhter [Page 3]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
