Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the recommendation process
heinerhummel@aol.com Thu, 17 December 2009 10:03 UTC
Return-Path: <HeinerHummel@aol.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 147233A6877 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:03:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.026
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.026 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.572, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 4TfGhZjG4CNy for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:03:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imr-da02.mx.aol.com (imr-da02.mx.aol.com [205.188.105.144]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF683A6862 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:03:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo-da01.mx.aol.com (imo-da01.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.199]) by imr-da02.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id nBHA3K1N001096; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:03:20 -0500
Received: from HeinerHummel@aol.com by imo-da01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id o.c24.73ed5ac8 (44668); Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:03:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtprly-mb03.mx.aol.com (smtprly-mb03.mx.aol.com [64.12.207.150]) by cia-mc01.mx.aol.com (v126.13) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMC017-5c6f4b2a01d714a; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:03:09 -0500
Received: from magic-d01.mail.aol.com (magic-d01.mail.aol.com [172.19.161.129]) by smtprly-mb03.mx.aol.com (v127.6) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYMB035-5c6f4b2a01d714a; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:03:03 -0500
From: heinerhummel@aol.com
Message-ID: <436.5e8314b9.385b5bd7@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:03:03 -0500
To: hannu.flinck@nsn.com, tony.li@tony.li, brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_436.5e8314b9.385b5bd7_boundary"
X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5021
X-AOL-ORIG-IP: 95.91.134.31
X-AOL-IP: 172.19.161.129
X-AOL-SENDER: HeinerHummel@aol.com
Cc: rrg@irtf.org, lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU
Subject: Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the recommendation process
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, 17 Dec 2009 10:03:51 -0000
In einer eMail vom 17.12.2009 10:02:35 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt hannu.flinck@nsn.com: Most of the scalability discussions we have had are dealing exactly with the mapping system, not how to tunnel or rewrite the addresses. The mapping system is the architecture that uses the tunnels or address manipulation based on some address structure. A tunneling scheme/address rewrite together with an address structure is not sufficient for scalabilty. - Hannu Right. It takes an architecture which doesn't require knowing each topological detail from the far distance, hence which doesn't require disseminating updates of respective changes. And we all know: the farer away, the larger the area, the more details there are. All the mainstream mapping-based architectures which only try to reduce the scalability problem ( a little bit), just shift the scalability problem (here: the update churn) to some other places. Concurrently they create an extra complexity which will be terrible wrt better routing technologies. Heiner >-----Original Message----- >From: rrg-bounces@irtf.org [mailto:rrg-bounces@irtf.org] On >Behalf Of ext Tony Li >Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 11:52 >To: Brian E Carpenter >Cc: rrg@irtf.org; Lixia Zhang >Subject: Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the >recommendation process > >Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >>> Mapping systems are obviously a component of a solution but are not >>> by themselves a solution. To be considered seriously, they >should be >>> used in conjunction with some network layer solution. >> >> Hmm. Don't you think that to some extent these should be orthogonal? >> A mapping mechanism needs to meet the specific requirements of a >> network layer mechanism, but that doesn't require the two to be >> irrevocably bound to each other. >> >> I have a feeling that the mapping system should be very general in >> nature, in case the first cut at either the locator or identifier >> space proves to fall short. Also I feel it should support hierarchy, >> even if we don't need a hierarchy from the start. > > > >Brian, > >Our recommendation is focused on providing an alternative >routing architecture. A mapping system is a fine component, >but would not seem to provide a credible architecture by itself. > >Tony > >_______________________________________________ >rrg mailing list >rrg@irtf.org >http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
- [rrg] belated msg: further description of the rec… Lixia Zhang
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Patrick Frejborg
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Michael Menth
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Scott Brim
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Noel Chiappa
- [rrg] On mapping systems Michael Menth
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Vince Fuller
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Brian E Carpenter
- [rrg] Summary of RANGI//re: belated msg: further … Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Lixia Zhang
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Lixia Zhang
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Lixia Zhang
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Lixia Zhang
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] Summary of RANGI//re: belated msg: furt… Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… $witch
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Charrie Sun
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Patrick Frejborg
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… heinerhummel
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Yangyang Wang
- [rrg] Summary of GLI-Split Michael Menth
- Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the… Lixia Zhang