Re: [rrg] Lixia & Scott's taxonomy I-D and other taxonomy attempts
Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu> Fri, 10 September 2010 06:18 UTC
Return-Path: <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B88773A69A2 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 23:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.750, BAYES_50=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id icqOmLhvbspI for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 23:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [131.179.128.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B68DF3A6AAF for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 23:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CCF339E80DF; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 23:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp.cs.ucla.edu
Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nvMfQuSGKCFc; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 23:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.6] (cpe-76-174-94-219.socal.res.rr.com [76.174.94.219]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F03D739E80B1; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 23:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4C86280A.1020909@firstpr.com.au>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 23:15:36 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <65D1DB80-21F9-47AB-8AE7-4995D81622BF@cs.ucla.edu>
References: <467c.11769f8e.39afa473@aol.com> <4C7E7AE2.8060709@firstpr.com.au> <AAE85E2C-A76E-43F6-B7AA-F77C9ACCEBE7@cs.ucla.edu> <4C86280A.1020909@firstpr.com.au>
To: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: rrg@irtf.org, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: [rrg] Lixia & Scott's taxonomy I-D and other taxonomy attempts
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 06:18:40 -0000
Truly appreciated all this info, Robin! will look over the weekend. Scott and I are scheduled to chat Monday on how to move the taxonomy draft forward. Lixia On Sep 7, 2010, at 4:54 AM, Robin Whittle wrote: > Short version: I found six attempts at making a taxonomy of > RRG proposed architectures: > > March 2008 Lixia and Scott's I-D > April 2008 My 25 questions > April 2008 Joel Halpern's I-D > July 2008 Christian Vogt's PDF document > Early 2009 Based on Bill Herrin's Strategies > Early 2010 My CES/CEE distinction messages > > > Hi Lixia, > > In "Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation- > 12.txt" you wrote: > >>> I figure people will read it. The questions we are tackling will >>> come up in the future, even if nothing is done with LISP, Ivip, >>> IRON, ILNP or whatever for five or ten years. >> >> Based on what I have seen in the past, I agree here. > > OK. > > >> 1/ The terms CES versus CEE came from a HOTNET paper, "Towards A >> Future Internet Architecture: Arguments for Separating Edges from >> Transit Core" ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets), >> October 2008 >> http://conferences.sigcomm.org/hotnets/2008/papers/18.pdf >> >> I do not think "DNS-based" or not is part of the CEE concept. > > I agree. > > >> 2/ I recall that long time ago I signed up to help a taxonomy >> draft. Scott Brim and I even produced a couple versions (predated >> the above mentioned paper). Although I've stepped down from RRG, I >> feel an obligation to help finish this piece. >> >> Let me first dig out the old draft by Scott and me. Then look over >> the mailing list discussion (if Robin has pointers at hand, that'd >> be very helpful than going through all email archive:) >> >> I chatted with Scott about this taxonomy draft at Maastricht IETF. >> Scott, wonder if your busy period is over and have some cycles for >> this now. > > Scott announced the I-D on 2008-03-29: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg02006.html > > The I-D is version 00 only, from the same date: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rrg-taxonomy-00 > > I commented on it on 2008-03-31, you responded and I replied: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg02015.html > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg02038.html > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg02042.html > > There was also an exchange between you and Heiner Hummel a few days > later. As far as I know, there were no further substantial > discussions of this I-D on the list. Hannu Flinck (msg02132.html) > wrote positively of your I-D. > > You wrote to the list: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg02162.html > > with primarily a 2-way taxonomy, with a potential 3rd classification > for address rewriting proposals (such as Six-One Router, I guess). > > > > A second taxonomy attempt began on 2008-04-02: I made a set of 25 > questions: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg02033.html > > and after some discussion, made a web page which incorporated > suggestions from other people: > > http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/comp/ > > Most of the questions refer to distinctions between what we know know > (or at least some people recognise as) Core-Edge Separation > architectures. This has been pretty much superseded, since most of > the proposed architectures considered in this framework are no longer > under development - or have changed considerably. > > > > On 2008-04-28, Joel Halpern wrote to the list: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg02161.html > > about his new I-D, which he updated on 2008-07-12 to version 01: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-halpern-rrg-taxonomy-01 > > > > On 2008-07-25, Christian Vogt wrote to the list: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg02911.html > > referring to: > > http://users.piuha.net/chvogt/pub/2008/vogt-2008-design-taxonomy.pdf > > which no longer exists. I don't recall anything about this, and I > think it was not discussed on the list. I don't think I have a copy. > > > > Another attempt at a taxonomy was in early 2009: > > http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/rrgarch/ > > This is based on Bill Herrin's Summary of Routing Architectures > discussed in the RRG: > > http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures.html > > I attempted to keep my page updated according to suggestions arising > in discussion. Strategy A is basically Core-Edge Separation (CES) and > Strategy B is basically Core-Edge Elimination (CEE). > > Bill's approach was mentioned in the initial draft of the RRG > Recommendation: 2009-02-15: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-00 > > after another taxonomy based on "mechanism". Versions 01 and 02 to > 2009-03-29 were similar. Version 03 (2009-12-26) was a completely > different document. > > > > A more recent taxonomy approach is the two-way distinction between CES > and CEE, from early 2010: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06250.html > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05865.html > > This is based on your Hotnets paper. My message of 2010-02-12 > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06009.html > > contains an attempt to understand the history of this CES/CEE distinction. > > > > This list is based on searching my RRG mailbox, which starts on > 2007-03-31 - for "taxonomy" in the subject line and then in the body. > > - Robin >
- [rrg] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-reco… Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-reco… HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-reco… Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-reco… Stephen D. Strowes
- Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-reco… Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-reco… Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-reco… Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-reco… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-reco… Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-reco… Tony Li
- [rrg] Revising the Design Goals I-D to be an RFC Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-reco… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-reco… Lixia Zhang
- Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-reco… Scott Brim
- [rrg] Lixia & Scott's taxonomy I-D and other taxo… Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] Lixia & Scott's taxonomy I-D and other … Lixia Zhang