Routing Sets and Hint-Based Routing

  • Ivan AvramovicEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 70)


The number of addresses on the Internet grows rapidly, and thus there may be a point at which the state requirements for routing become unwieldy. The intent of this research is twofold. First to draw on compact routing theory with landmark routing, thus reducing router state requirements, but also to make the the implementation of theoretical routing protocols with low state requirements more feasible in a policy constrained network. To that end, conceptual organizational scheme called routing sets is presented, which would allow flexibility in the choice of routing policy. Furthermore, an IPv6 extension and algorithm is presented for routing using hints, which moves some of the routing responsibility onto the end hosts, potentially freeing routers of a great deal of the routing state burden.


Compact routing Stretch Landmark routing IPv6 



The author would like to thank Dr. Robert Simon, who was instrumental in encouraging him to push this research through to completion.


  1. 1.
    Abley, J., Savola, P., Neville-Neil, G.: Deprecation of type 0 routing headers in ipv6. RFC 5095, Internet Engineering Task Force (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abraham, I., Gavoille, C., Malkhi, D., Nisan, N., Thorup, M.: Compact name-independent routing with minimum stretch. ACM Trans. Algorithms 4(3), 37:1–37:12 (2008). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bellovin, S.M.: Security problems in the TCP/IP protocol suite. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 19(2), 32–48 (1989). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biondi, A., Ebalard, P.: Ipv6 routing header security. In: CanSecWest Security Conference (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clark, D.: The design philosophy of the DARPA internet protocols. In: Symposium Proceedings on Communications Architectures and Protocols, SIGCOMM ’88, pp. 106–114. ACM, New York, NY, USA (1988).
  6. 6.
    Drazic, B., Liebeherr, J.: Improving routing scalability in networks with dynamic substrates. In: Teletraffic Congress (ITC), 2014 26th International, pp. 1–9 (2014).
  7. 7.
    Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Shakir, R.: Segment routing architecture. RFC 8402, Internet Engineering Task Force (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gavoille, C., Glacet, C., Hanusse, N., Ilcinkas, D.: On the communication complexity of distributed name-independent routing schemes. In: Distributed Computing, pp. 418–432. Springer, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Godfrey, P.B., Ganichev, I., Shenker, S., Stoica, I.: Pathlet routing. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2009 Conference on Data Communication, SIGCOMM ’09, pp. 111–122. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2009).
  10. 10.
    Gulyas, A., Retvari, G., Heszberger, Z., Agarwal, R.: On the scalability of routing with policies. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking PP(99), 1–1 (2014). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson, D., Hu, Y., Maltz, D.: The dynamic source routing protocol (DSR) for mobile ad hoc networks for IPv4. RFC 4728, Internet Engineering Task Force (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karpilovsky, E., Rexford, J.: Using forgetful routing to control BGP table size. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM CoNEXT Conference, CoNEXT ’06, pp. 2:1–2:12. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2006).
  13. 13.
    Kos, J., Aiash, M., Loo, J., Trek, D.: U-sphere: strengthening scalable flat-name routing for decentralized networks. Comput. Netw. 89, 14–31 (2015). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mao, Y., Wang, F., Qiu, L., Lam, S., Smith, J.: S4: small state and small stretch compact routing protocol for large static wireless networks. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 18(3), 761–774 (2010). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meyer, D., Zhang, L., Fall, K.: Report from the IAB workshop on routing and addressing. RFC 4984, Internet Engineering Task Force (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singla, A., Godfrey, P.B., Fall, K., Iannaccone, G., Ratnasamy, S.: Scalable routing on flat names. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference, Co-NEXT ’10, pp. 20:1–20:12. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2010).
  17. 17.
    Strowes, S.D., Mooney, G., Perkins, C.: Compact routing on the internet as-graph. In: 2011 IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), pp. 852–857. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thorup, M., Zwick, U.: Compact routing schemes. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA ’01, pp. 1–10. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2001).
  19. 19.
    Tsuchiya, P.F.: The landmark hierarchy: a new hierarchy for routing in very large networks. In: Symposium Proceedings on Communications Architectures and Protocols, SIGCOMM ’88, pp. 35–42. ACM, New York, NY, USA (1988).
  20. 20.
    Westphal, C., Pei, G.: Scalable routing via greedy embedding. In: INFOCOM 2009, IEEE, pp. 2826–2830. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yanbin, S., Yu, Z., Hongli, Z., Binxing, F., Jiantao, S.: An ICN-oriented name-based routing scheme. In: Wang, H., Qi, H., Che, W., Qiu, Z., Kong, L., Han, Z., Lin, J., Lu, Z. (eds.) Intelligent Computation in Big Data Era. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 503, pp. 101–108. Springer, Berlin (2015). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations