Re: [rrg] Terminology
Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Thu, 04 February 2010 14:19 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 3A32C3A6907 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 06:19:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.493
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.493 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.106, 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 lWm-rXetp9an for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 06:19:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C5D3A68F9 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 06:19:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 5so205771qwd.7 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:19:51 -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=HHenxvj3uBdXEezpfELb8u4r2anSzYEjsVqC33w/5Co=; b=xIvE49blWFmbk0U3qFxcVydqN8RGFKLmn0c+J1G4PzJQdASDSfFyZUPVXrBCfcg17D +p/MsMoEwSB8KTMciXjwIKiekeJSHK3SvlAsObEXKX33Yz+0c6iQU28VFTNqm5z6ULFw 8mL0/1W9FGGdTGUQr0BtfJRB90ZN2KPQI0lpg=
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=iXRCI0yyvc0GJ3HoOGbrWuua0arhM2Olc4SIRaZG6H20grUukbDDIlV6B6gEQffKCd +X4iYzTNl9Bt51jTP8Cr3x7FR+YPGedJmcGFbMjwp2++PPgASgm5ieLNW//J4uCEiOaM 2xTlNbVNbyx0Ql85XpBl6EH5EU2XNHGXv3EZ4=
Received: by 10.224.36.74 with SMTP id s10mr127690qad.354.1265293189957; Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:19:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbrim-mbp.local (198-135-0-233.cisco.com [198.135.0.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 35sm1355666vws.16.2010.02.04.06.19.47 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:19:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B6AD782.7050506@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:19:46 -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: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
References: <C78F8E7D.3D4%tony.li@tony.li>
In-Reply-To: <C78F8E7D.3D4%tony.li@tony.li>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rrg@irtf.org, Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [rrg] Terminology
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: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:19:08 -0000
Tony Li allegedly wrote on 02/03/2010 23:35 EST: > On 2/3/10 7:31 PM, "Noel Chiappa" <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote: > >> Someone pointed out to me that although I've been using the terms CEE and CES >> as synonomous for the terms 'host-centric' and 'edge-centric' (and >> 'network-centric' completes the list), that for others they seemingly aren't >> exactly synonomous, but subtly different. >> >> Can someone confirm this, and explain what the differences are? >> >> I'll be using 'host-centric', etc from now on. My apologies if I have >> inadvertently caused any confusion by using them as synonyms for >> 'host-centric' >> and 'edge-centric'. > > To me, CES seemed to be 'map-and-encap' and CEE was 'everything else'. To me, they are different ways to take a step from where we are now. We currently have edge sites injecting their prefixes upstream at various points in the topology -- either PI or PA -- and having them routed instead of being aggregated immediately. CES refers to getting rid of that by not having edge site prefixes seen upstream at all. CEE refers to getting rid of that by having pure PA-based aggregatation (multiply connected sites get multiple PA aggregates). CEE implies some changes to both hosts and edge site operations, but isn't "host-centric". I'm not sure that term is useful when talking about routing and addressing architecture. Changes to hosts might derive from the changes to routing and addressing but aren't central to them. > While that's certainly a distinction, it's clearly not the only one and > perhaps not the optimally constructive one. I think it's one clear metric for evaluating next steps from where we are, but it seems that some approaches just don't fit in it. I think it's still useful if an approach does fall in it, in that it bundles up implications. "such-and-such is CES. Oh, so that means it has the following issues to figure out ..."
- [RRG] Terminology RJ Atkinson
- Re: [RRG] Terminology Christian Vogt
- Re: [rrg] Terminology Xu Xiaohu
- [rrg] Terminology RJ Atkinson
- Re: [rrg] Terminology Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] Terminology Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] Terminology - CES & CEE again Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] Terminology Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] Terminology Eliot Lear
- Re: [rrg] Terminology RJ Atkinson
- Re: [rrg] Terminology Eliot Lear
- Re: [rrg] Terminology Scott Brim
- Re: [rrg] Terminology Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [rrg] Terminology Scott Brim
- Re: [rrg] Terminology Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] Terminology Scott Brim
- Re: [rrg] Terminology HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] Terminology Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] Terminology HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] Terminology - CES & CEE again Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] Terminology Robin Whittle