IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimination vs. Separation?

Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Mon, 25 January 2010 13:41 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.brim@gmail.com>
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 0DDD33A680E for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:41:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 eWbiYPsbjR6W for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:41:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f185.google.com (mail-qy0-f185.google.com [209.85.221.185]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 355443A69DC for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:41:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qyk15 with SMTP id 15so1811434qyk.23 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:41:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vYEswztlgp3A3lx8j8Kl0Mqv2DIOZGCUEiGyS6NnPMk=; b=NnsQ5cYoNQ5fnNkCymFmrvT/tZmUge2xSoKJ+ROyEFW+zFT9y5XOMC3t4mN0WRF+ZX hkihdE8SPVvMfZ7FHLccleLckwhATquOEoG1f5mwG/M5YtjDYzQGuPGu2j8DSbJj4iKl iPHNepWTlNlUn58pqUv+tUJ480aYZdJFcIRc0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=gTwwOYq6cUhVyo9GdjB2hDKINeFI7Q8+SD/MXrg32rurzzYLMhDcnnSGeMTEie+owM l33wHl4X6ELFcvGm5i9IMJXgAgGDtEdB4IrY7lgYxNBKINnkQNyu2fdIFkTISewHyEUn yT3XOo2BfPHyx21JmJN2TEBP/UGjC8TFBbh3s=
Received: by 10.224.7.194 with SMTP id e2mr4109510qae.291.1264426906404; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:41:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbrim-mbp.local (198-135-0-233.cisco.com [198.135.0.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 23sm2613716qyk.15.2010.01.25.05.41.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:41:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B5D9F94.7090609@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:41:40 -0500
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
References: <20100124194735.5C8636BE57F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20100124194735.5C8636BE57F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] Arguments in favour of Core-Edge Elimination vs. Separation?
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: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:41:43 -0000

Noel Chiappa allegedly wrote on 01/24/2010 14:47 EST:
> LISP is really intended to achieve one chief goal: to split up location and
> identity, and do so in a way that is economically and deployably practical.

(Insert repeat of arguments about "identity", and how LISP separates
global from local routing, here.)

> Yes, doing that does improve things over in the routing sphere, because now
> things that people were trying to do with routing (improperly, due to
> hammer-nail syndrome) can be done with a better tool.

Right.  The problem is that endpoints and agents have been mixing
identification and separation, and routing was trying to take up the
slack.

> However, LISP is still not a new routing architecture - which I claim we will
> still need, when all the dust settles. And _none_ of the proposals here (well,
> the Compact Routing stuff comes closest) is a new routing architecture....

The just-in-time ugly Internet.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email