[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Separation vs. Elimination
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 15:36 -0700, Dan Jen wrote:
> Hi all,
> We have published a paper comparing the two major approaches
> discussed on the RRG regarding routing scalability: separation and
> elimination. We believe that the proposals discussed on the list can be
> placed into either of these two categories. The paper goes on to argue
> why separation is a better direction than elimination when trying to
> achieve routing scalability.
> The separation approach involves separating edge networks from core
> networks, taking edge prefixes out of the routing tables. Map & Encap
> schemes such as APT, LISP, and Ivip fall into this category. So do
> translation schemes such as SixOne.
> The elimination approach eliminates the use of PI addresses,
> moving edge networks into aggregatable PA blocks. Transport layer
> solutions fall into this category, as well as Shim6.
> The paper will be presented at the upcoming Hotnets VII workshop. It
> can be found here:
> Agree? Disagree? Questions/Comments welcomed.
The statement "A common requirement of all the separation solutions is a
mapping system that associate an edge prefix with the corresponding
transit addresses." on page 2 is false. GSE, for instance, requires no
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg