Re: [rrg] Why won't supporters of Loc/ID Separation (CEE) argue their case?

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Mon, 08 March 2010 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <tony.li@tony.li>
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 502023A6A97 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:30:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, 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 kIL+zu2rNuvy for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:30:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD763A6A9E for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:30:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta17.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.73]) by qmta07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id qiRw1d0081afHeLA7jW8Li; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:30:08 +0000
Received: from [171.70.244.111] ([171.70.244.111]) by omta17.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id qjVT1d0022QvkQB8djVohW; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:30:04 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.23.0.091001
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:29:25 -0800
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
To: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>, RRG <rrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <C7BA9015.5143%tony.li@tony.li>
Thread-Topic: [rrg] Why won't supporters of Loc/ID Separation (CEE) argue their case?
Thread-Index: Acq+9alKTMSSPHucNUqgO2dRoBpzlQ==
In-Reply-To: <4B94D6EA.3000800@firstpr.com.au>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: Ran Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [rrg] Why won't supporters of Loc/ID Separation (CEE) argue their case?
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, 08 Mar 2010 19:30:12 -0000

Hi Robin,

>> Also, we've been over (and over and over) the points here repeatedly.
> 
> Can you point to some messages or other documents where you or others
> argue that the delays, extra packets, extra complexity etc. I believe
> Loc/ID Separation forces on all hosts are either non-existent or a
> price worth paying for saving on the additional routing system
> complexity required by the only other obvious solution - Core-Edge
> Separation (ITRs, ETRs and tunneling)?

Again, I refuse to get into debates about mechanism trivialities.  If we
were going to have an architectural debate, then it should be about the
solution space.  Classes of solutions, not about the engineering details.
We've recently touched on this when we started tried to talk about groups of
proposals.

>> I'm happy to have a reasoned debate about
>> architectural issues, but I'm not about to have another yes-no-yes-no
>> argument and I'm not interested in debating mechanisms.
> 
> Are you interested in debating anything on the list?

Asked and answered.

Tony