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.