[e2e] a means to an end

[Pekka Nikander]

> If [path selection], some previous work I did tried to bring in the  
> concept of
> allowing competing path-selection algorithms. The design did share a  
> single
> underlying database of information about the network between them (of
> connectivity), but it seemed to me that that level of commonality  
> didn't
> unduly burden the ability to go different ways, and having that common
> underlying database had advantages that offset its disadvantages. I  
> know
> there is a position that there are some connectivity models which  
> can't be
> represented in the model we picked (a graph), but the architecture  
> did allow
> non-graph connectivity models in localized areas, and I still think  
> that for
> the overall representation of the global network, the graph model is  
> best.

And what did you learn?  What are the tussles?  Is it realistic for
different players to trust each other with enough of information so
that useful-enough graph approximations can be formed?  Are there
situations where one can benefit too much from lying to the peers?

--Pekka