RE: [RRG] arguments for map and encap

["Fleischman, Eric" <eric.fleischman@boeing.com>]

From: Michael Meisel [mailto:meisel@cs.ucla.edu] 
>For a long term solution, we believe some decoupling of the network
customers 
>and transit networks is necessary. The conflict over PI addresses is a
clear 
>example of the need to decouple. In the long term, it also opens up a
number 
>of new possibilities at both sides for scaling and routing changes in
the core 
>and techniques to exploit mapping service for new features at the
edges.

I value your posting and believe that it accurately reflects the
viewpoint of many of the stake holders, including the large corporate
end user.

I am confident that you already know that the actual situation is more
complicated than you stated but I believe that your summary is generally
accurate at a semi-high level of abstraction.

I interpret your posting as building upon Lixia's and Scott's
draft-rrg-taxonomy-00.txt by suggesting that the map and encaps
alternative is the most compelling. However, I would prefer that such a
decision be based upon modeling and simulation or some other analytical
technique. While I certainly concur with your logic, I do not believe
that we yet have documented technical evidence to prefer one generic
approach over another at this time.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.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