From HeinerHummel@aol.com  Mon Jun  6 14:56:54 2011
Return-Path: <HeinerHummel@aol.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B2E811E8137 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon,  6 Jun 2011 14:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.002
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZhOKb17jHiFc for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon,  6 Jun 2011 14:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr-ma04.mx.aol.com (imr-ma04.mx.aol.com [64.12.206.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2BB611E80F9 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon,  6 Jun 2011 14:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo-ma03.mx.aol.com (imo-ma03.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.138]) by imr-ma04.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p56Lujkb021096 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 17:56:45 -0400
Received: from HeinerHummel@aol.com by imo-ma03.mx.aol.com  (mail_out_v42.9.) id 9.114d.126340e (55725) for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 17:56:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtprly-de03.mx.aol.com (smtprly-de03.mx.aol.com [205.188.249.170]) by cia-md02.mx.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMD028-b2404ded4d172c0; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 17:56:41 -0400
Received: from webmail-m038 (webmail-m038.sim.aol.com [64.12.101.221]) by smtprly-de03.mx.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYDE031-b2404ded4d172c0; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 17:56:39 -0400
To: rrg@irtf.org
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 17:56:38 -0400
X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI
X-AOL-IP: 95.91.105.21
X-MB-Message-Type: User
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: heinerhummel@aol.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;  boundary="--------MB_8CDF2ABBF2E5BDC_15B4_5D080_webmail-m038.sysops.aol.com"
X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 33790-STANDARD
Received: from 95.91.105.21 by webmail-m038.sysops.aol.com (64.12.101.221) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Mon, 06 Jun 2011 17:56:38 -0400
Message-Id: <8CDF2ABBF299918-15B4-2D7BC@webmail-m038.sysops.aol.com>
X-AOL-SENDER: HeinerHummel@aol.com
Subject: [rrg] Are there routing experts who can help me ?
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 21:56:54 -0000

----------MB_8CDF2ABBF2E5BDC_15B4_5D080_webmail-m038.sysops.aol.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Are there routing experts who can help me ?



What is the current state-of-art opinion about the Steiner Tree Problem?=
 is it np or p ?


What is the currently best algorithm to compute a Steiner Tree?


Can somebody describe it ?=20


Is it true that in case there were a best Steiner Tree solution other issu=
es like RSA encryption would be in trouble ?


I appreciate your information


Heiner





----------MB_8CDF2ABBF2E5BDC_15B4_5D080_webmail-m038.sysops.aol.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<font color=3D'black' size=3D'2' face=3D'arial'><span class=3D"Apple-style=
-span" style=3D"font-size: small; ">Are there routing experts who can help=
 me ?
<div style=3D"clear: both; "></div>

<div><br>
</div>

<div>What is the current state-of-art opinion about the Steiner Tree Probl=
em? is it np or p ?</div>

<div><br>
</div>

<div>What is the currently best algorithm to compute a Steiner Tree?</div>

<div><br>
</div>

<div>Can somebody describe it ?&nbsp;</div>

<div><br>
</div>

<div>Is it true that in case there were a best Steiner Tree solution other=
 issues like RSA encryption would be in trouble ?</div>

<div><br>
</div>

<div>I appreciate your information</div>

<div><br>
</div>

<div>Heiner</div>

<div><br>
</div>
</span><br>

<div style=3D"clear:both"></div>
</font>

----------MB_8CDF2ABBF2E5BDC_15B4_5D080_webmail-m038.sysops.aol.com--

From HeinerHummel@aol.com  Wed Jun 15 13:41:54 2011
Return-Path: <HeinerHummel@aol.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B40C11E8136 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.554
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.555,  BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qIdYeiokHUGe for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr-ma01.mx.aol.com (imr-ma01.mx.aol.com [64.12.206.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC4411E8171 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo-ma03.mx.aol.com (imo-ma03.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.138]) by imr-ma01.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p5FKfokr009616 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:41:50 -0400
Received: from HeinerHummel@aol.com by imo-ma03.mx.aol.com  (mail_out_v42.9.) id 9.eda.1514df6c (43974) for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:41:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtprly-de03.mx.aol.com (smtprly-de03.mx.aol.com [205.188.249.170]) by cia-dd03.mx.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILCIADD037-b2524df9190628b; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:41:45 -0400
Received: from Webmail-d123 (webmail-d123.sim.aol.com [205.188.108.132]) by smtprly-de03.mx.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYDE036-b2524df9190628b; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:41:42 -0400
References: <06B61955-CA9F-4CE7-9DA3-6DA8ECF6CD07@cisco.com><4DC90101.50403@it.uc3m.es><69F152CB-2FAF-4569-B0BF-1F97BB5A845E@tony.li><4DCB6F88.1080807@it.uc3m.es> <81A1DDDC-8CFA-4613-BFE2-F93FD28C900A@tony.li> <8CDE456BF2AAE6C-1464-3D2F8@webmail-m074.sysops.aol.com>
To: rrg@irtf.org
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:41:42 -0400
X-AOL-IP: 95.91.105.21
In-Reply-To: <8CDE456BF2AAE6C-1464-3D2F8@webmail-m074.sysops.aol.com>
X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: heinerhummel@aol.com
X-MB-Message-Type: User
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;  boundary="--------MB_8CDF9B3C4B7E4A3_1FC4_16C32_Webmail-d123.sysops.aol.com"
X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 33867-STANDARD
Received: from 95.91.105.21 by Webmail-d123.sysops.aol.com (205.188.108.132) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:41:42 -0400
Message-Id: <8CDF9B3C4A99C5D-1FC4-B13C@Webmail-d123.sysops.aol.com>
X-AOL-SENDER: HeinerHummel@aol.com
Subject: Re: [rrg] Next topic?
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 20:41:54 -0000

----------MB_8CDF9B3C4B7E4A3_1FC4_16C32_Webmail-d123.sysops.aol.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Some time ago I proposed as a next topic:



2) State-less multicast for about 99 % of the involved routers by means of=
 cascade tree multicast
Example: By employing a cascade degree =3D10 about 90 % of the receivers=
 wouldn't even become aware of being involved in some multicast activity.A=
ssuming 20 hops in average between any two nodes of the cascade tree, only=
 a half percent of the involved routers have be cascade tree multicast kno=
wledgable.


There was no single response. Can it be that there is some further routing=
 paradigm I am not aware of that either says:
- Multicast concepts MUST be stateful,
or
Multicast concepts Must NOT be hybrids (e.g. with   99,5 % involved router=
s experiencing UNICAST)
???






Heiner
----------------------------------------------------------
Be assured: np =3D p






=20

----------MB_8CDF9B3C4B7E4A3_1FC4_16C32_Webmail-d123.sysops.aol.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<font color=3D'black' size=3D'2' face=3D'arial'>Some time ago I proposed=
 as a next topic:<br>
<br>

<div style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica;font-size:10pt;color:black">
<div id=3D"AOLMsgPart_2_4364a4f8-c5f5-4d94-9574-81a54aa10333"><font color=
=3D"black" size=3D"2" face=3D"arial">


<div>2) State-less multicast for about 99 % of the involved routers by mea=
ns of cascade tree multicast</div>



<div>Example: By employing a cascade degree =3D10 about 90 % of the receiv=
ers wouldn't even become aware of being involved in some multicast activit=
y.Assuming 20 hops in average between any two nodes of the cascade tree,=
 only a half percent of the involved routers have be cascade tree multicas=
t knowledgable.</div>



<div><br>

</div>

<div>There was no single response. Can it be that there is some further ro=
uting paradigm I am not aware of that either says:</div>

<div>- Multicast concepts MUST be stateful,</div>

<div>or</div>

<div>Multicast concepts Must NOT be hybrids (e.g. with &nbsp; 99,5 % invol=
ved routers experiencing UNICAST)</div>

<div>???</div>

<div><br>
</div>

<div><br>
</div>



<div><br>

</div>



<div>Heiner</div>

<div>----------------------------------------------------------</div>



<div>Be assured: np =3D p
</div>



<div><br>

</div>



<div><br>

</div>



<div><br>

</div>

</font>

</div>
 <!-- end of AOLMsgPart_2_4364a4f8-c5f5-4d94-9574-81a54aa10333 -->



</div>
</font>

----------MB_8CDF9B3C4B7E4A3_1FC4_16C32_Webmail-d123.sysops.aol.com--