Re: [rrg] Terminology - CES & CEE again
Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au> Thu, 04 February 2010 06:00 UTC
Return-Path: <rw@firstpr.com.au>
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 B4BDB3A6C9A for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 22:00:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.654
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.654 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.241, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327]
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 DaBnR-K018pA for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 22:00:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gair.firstpr.com.au (gair.firstpr.com.au [150.101.162.123]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4215C3A6C76 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 22:00:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.6] (wira.firstpr.com.au [10.0.0.6]) by gair.firstpr.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB4A2175E39; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 17:01:27 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <4B6A62B5.7080904@firstpr.com.au>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:01:25 +1100
From: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
Organization: First Principles
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com>
References: <002b01caa54d$e54f3a40$090d6f0a@china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <002b01caa54d$e54f3a40$090d6f0a@china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rrg@irtf.org, Randall Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>, 'Noel Chiappa' <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [rrg] Terminology - CES & CEE again
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 06:00:47 -0000
I am perplexed that Ran Atkinson (msg05940) has joined Joel Halpern (msg05867) and Lixia Zhang (msg05897) in questioning the architectural validity and importance of the distinction between CEE (Core-Edge Elimination) and CES (Core-Edge Separation) proposals. Ran, you wrote: > I don't find the "CES" or "CEE" terms to be very meaningful, > in that they don't really inform one about the important > properties of any proposal. As I wrote to Joel and Lixia, I would really appreciate you writing why you disagree with: CES & CEE are completely different (graphs) http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05865.html Neither you, nor Joel, nor Lixia have given any explanation why you think this. Perhaps the easiest way of doing so would be to point out what is wrong with (msg05865), in which the architectural distinctions are made quite explicit, along with their importance to the RRG. > Just as Patrick disagrees with how hIP4 has been characterised, > I don't really agree with how ILNP has been characterised. OK - its not much good just stating your opinion. Enquiring minds want to know why you think this. What is wrong with me or other people asserting that ILNP is a CEE architecture? Like the others, it enables the elimination of "edge" addresses - PI addresses - and it also does not require the creation of a new class of "edge" addresses as is done with a Core-Edge Separation architecture such as LISP or Ivip. How do you think ILNP should be characterised? I wrote that hIPv4 was a CEE after looking briefly at the summary. Patrick tells me I am mistaken, and he has given some descriptions which make me think that it has at least some things in common with a CES architecture, without any resemblance to a CEE architecture (msg05923). So at present I don't regard it as a CEE proposal. I hope to read the whole hIPv4 proposal soon. > I don't see the value in trying to continue use of those terms > within the Routing RG context. OK - but why do you think they don't reflect important distinctions between proposals? > Probably best if we all just move on, and keep trying to find > meaningful ways to characterise the various ideas floating within > the RG. I and others have tried to find meaningful ways of characterising the proposals. We think the CEE and CES distinction is important. I argued why in (msg05865). You, Lixia and Joel just wrote that you disagree, without any indication why. ILNP and the other proposals which I and others regard as being CEE architectures involve a completely different naming model from that of today's IPv4 and IPv6, in that the new model has separate objects, in separate namespaces, for the roles of Identifier and Locator. Another way of saying this is that CEE architectures, including ILNP, implement "Locator / Identifier Separation". (Not to be confused with LISP - which is a CES architecture and does not implement "Loc/ID Separation".) Many people on this list, including Tony Li, consider this naming model to be "doing it right". I think Tony - and you - believe the Internet would be so much better with this model that it is worth upgrading all the host stacks and rewriting all the applications to support this model. I disagree - I think it would be a major step in the wrong direction: Today's "IP addr. = ID = Loc" naming model should be retained http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05864.html I don't think everything about CEE is bad. For instance, it does not involve tunneling - so there is no problem with Path MTU Discovery, which I now realise is a terrible mess, thanks to Fred's recent research: Fred's IPv4 PMTUD research: RFC1191 support frequently broken http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05910.html Except for Ivip with upgrades to all DFZ routers, any CES architecture needs to tunnel traffic packets en-masse, and it looks like it is going to be difficult to handle the PMTUD problems this raises. Xu Xiaohu wrote: > Somebody argues that LISP is an edge-centric (i.e., CES) solution, then what > about LISP-MN? Meanwhile, somebody argues that HIP and RANGI are > host-centric (i.e., CEE) solution, then what about HIP proxy and RANGI proxy > mechanisms? The CES vs. CEE distinction does not arise from whether hosts are altered or not. It arises from the fundamentally different mechanisms which are used by these two different types of architecture to achieve scalable routing. I don't know enough about HIP proxy or RANGI proxy to comment, but if you understand them, then my (msg05865) gives you a good basis to decide how closely they resemble either a CES or CEE architecture. > IMHO, these two options are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they > should be complementary for each other. Each one is suitable for its > corresponding stage of the Internet architecture evolution path. I am not arguing that host changes should not be contemplated. I observe that CES architectures do not require any host changes and that CEE architectures require changes to all host stacks and all host applications in the world - in order to support any one adopter having all their communications gain the portability, multihoming and inbound TE benefits. But these are observations of two kinds of architecture - see my (msg05865) for the architectural distinctions themselves. - Robin
- [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