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 14:22:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CABG_PfSvcsbXGfF-udtW3tvTk1NvuM2J9qWHHD=+_+ttNLSqDA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Arcieri <tony@chain.com>
Cc: Xavier Vas <xavier@tr80.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
(comparing packet routing to payment routing in that last email)

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback@gmail.com>

> 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 21:23:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 3 July 2017 21:23:31 UTC