# 6th Assignment Group: Monday 2-4 - Group 1 Ana Tomi: 413117 Fabian Wagner: 349330 Lukas Hoffmann: 415442 Yasin Kilic: 371955 ## Question 1: Scenic Routing for IPv6 ### (a) In the Introduction and in Section 6, what motivations are given for scenic routing? summarize in your own words. The RFC is motivated by the fact that IP packets primarily exist in copper wires and dark fibres. The author assumes that this would be negative (he calls it "torturous") and therefore proposes an alternative. He sees this as part of the "Green IT" movement. ### (b) How is Scenic Routing supposed to be implemented, according to Section 2 and 3? Briefly summarize the key ideas in your own words. Give some examples of operations that different devices implementing this RFC might perform on packets. Scenic Routing will be placed as an option in the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Header. According to the RFC2460 SRO (Scenic Routing) will use a 8-bit identifier of the type of option. These 8 bits define wether Scenic Routing must or maybe used for routing. Also the bits define wether wireless links or Avian IP Carrieres should be used. Also there is a possibility to choose an affinity for link types. Instead of finding the shortest and cheapest path Scenic Routing provides the longes Avian IP Carrier and or wireless path possible for a packet. If a hosts receives a packet over Scenic Routing, any packets sent back must have Scenic Routing activated. Same is valid for proxy servers or other packet-relaying applications, too. Some examples might be using WLAN instead of LAN when you are using a Laptop. Also using LTE with your smartphone instead of WLAN will extend the time packets travel outside in the fresh air. ### (c ) Name advantages and disadvantages of Scenic Routing compared to regular routing. The main advantage is that the poor little ip packets are no longer forced exclusively through copper and fibre optics, but also get the benefit of fresh air on their journey. Since in scenic routing a further target parameter influences the routing decision, this inevitably leads to routing decisions that neglect the previous objectives (Optimal Routing, Stability, Ease of Use, Flexibility, Rapid Convergence). It can be assumed that the factors associated with these objectives will suffer as a result. In the end, it is a decision that every owner of domesticated IP packages must make for himself. Comparable to the decision to consume meat and put one's own needs above those of the small innocent IP packages.