Ouroboros Frequently Asked Questions: Difference between revisions

From Ouroboros
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 21: Line 21:




== The papers redefines key terms from graph theory (introducing “walk” for path, “unique walk” for Hamiltonian path) ==
== The authors seem to claim that forwarding is a single hop in a routing table, but it’s the *process* of relaying packets to the next hop that involves selecting ONE of those hops; it isn’t just the set of possible hops ==


== The authors seem to claim that the opposite of flat names are hierarchical names. Non-flat names can have many structures, only one of which is hierarchical, e.g., hypercube names are not hierarchical but are structured and routable based on name content. How do you account for this? ==


== The papers claims that forwarding is a single hop in a route table (it’s the *process* of relaying packets to the next hop that involves selecting ONE of those hops; it isn’t just the set of possible hops) ==
 
== Can the “forwarding layer” can manage congestion control (instead of the protocol performing flow control)? ==
 
== TCP over TCP is known to perform very badly unless the impact of operating retransmission, reordering, flow control, and congestion control at different layers on top of each other is carefully managed ==

Revision as of 15:52, 16 October 2022

General Remarks

A new model should demonstrate a NEW capability, not just existing examples.

Paper Remarks

Ouroboros claims Unicast and Multicast must be distinct mechanisms. However, these mechanisms interact seamlessly for existing protocols such as IP/ARP and IPv6 (where, in particular, IPv6 packets are transmitted as Ethernet multicast until MAC learning occurs). Isn't this contradictory?

We need to make a distinction here. The claim which we are making is that the process that is doing either multicast or unicast needs to be aware that it is doing so. In the example given, the application uses IPv6, and IPv6 is doing multicast until MAC learning occurs. It is not the application that is using IPv6 that is a multicast application. The IPv6 protocol


Ouroboros seems to ignore how names are used to distinguish multicast/unicast without applications ever knowing (sometimes via name aliases, e.g., DNS)

Some physical layers natively support multicast and some protocols rely on that very feature, how is this accounted for in Ouroboros?

The definitions in the paper only mention link weights, what about node weights and weights that are not just a scalar value?

The authors seem to claim that forwarding is a single hop in a routing table, but it’s the *process* of relaying packets to the next hop that involves selecting ONE of those hops; it isn’t just the set of possible hops

The authors seem to claim that the opposite of flat names are hierarchical names. Non-flat names can have many structures, only one of which is hierarchical, e.g., hypercube names are not hierarchical but are structured and routable based on name content. How do you account for this?

Can the “forwarding layer” can manage congestion control (instead of the protocol performing flow control)?

TCP over TCP is known to perform very badly unless the impact of operating retransmission, reordering, flow control, and congestion control at different layers on top of each other is carefully managed

Retrieved from "https://ouroboros.rocks/mediawiki/index.php?title=Ouroboros_Frequently_Asked_Questions&oldid=405"