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 papers redefines key terms from graph theory (introducing “walk” for path, “unique walk” for Hamiltonian path)

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)

Ouroboros Frequently Asked Questions

Contents

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?

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 papers redefines key terms from graph theory (introducing “walk” for path, “unique walk” for Hamiltonian path)

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)

Navigation menu

Ouroboros Frequently Asked Questions

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?

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 papers redefines key terms from graph theory (introducing “walk” for path, “unique walk” for Hamiltonian path)

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)

Navigation menu

Search

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)