W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-interledger@w3.org > July 2017

Re: Forming a Routing Working Group

From: Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 13:58:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CABG_PfT20L+5KeRz6Y-jtkE2tqvXEDnij75Y2NV3JLBVXOgO7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Arcieri <tony@chain.com>
Cc: Xavier Vas <xavier@tr80.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
I think proactive distance vector is less well-suited than reactive
protocols (like AODV), because

- Links change more quickly as their balances are used up.
- Latency is not as high of a concern (nobody is going to mind waiting a
few seconds to save a few bucks).

Just my opinion

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Tony Arcieri <tony@chain.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:05 AM Xavier Vas <xavier@tr80.com> wrote:
>
>> Basically, the interledger routing problem isn't different from any
>> peer-to-peer network, even if the "peers" are pools of machines on a
>> blockchain or similar.
>>
>
> There are any number of sources of precedent to look to for ILP routing.
> ILP routing protocols need to seek tradeoffs between time and transfer
> fees, something proprietary payment networks have done for many years, but
> a problem not too far off from distance vector routing, or s/OSPF/"open
> cheapest path first"/
>
> That said, I think despite this ample precedent that  what Interledger is
> doing is somewhat unique and a worthy area of exploration.
>
> I have some pejorative things to say about the routing protocols you
> referenced, but I think they're off topic for this thread. If you really
> want to know, ping me personally.
>
>>
Received on Monday, 3 July 2017 20:59:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 3 July 2017 20:59:16 UTC