Re: [RRG] arguments for map and encap

[Michael Meisel <meisel@cs.ucla.edu>]

Hi everyone, sorry for our delayed response...

On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 18:09 -0700, Tony Li wrote:
> |As compared to other types of schemes, map & encap requires
> |changes only
> |to the nodes at the borders (where encap/decap occurs), along
> perhaps
> |with a small support infrastructure. No changes are required at end
> |hosts who benefit only indirectly from the change -- in fact, map &
> |encap schemes can be made invisible to end users (and edge networks
> in
> |general, if desirable).
> |
>
>
> I'll just point out that to make a more convincing and balanced
> argument,
> it's necessary to address both the positives and negatives of an
> approach.
> Would you care to expound a bit?
>

Well, the most obvious issue with any map & encap proposal is that
there must be a way to perform a mapping resolution, which means that
there must be a way to maintain many, many mapping entries.  This is a
very hard problem, usually solved by making some significant changes to
the Internet, such as creating a new infrastructure, modifying an 
existing one (such as DNS), or modifying a significant amount of nodes 
on the Internet.

There are probably other problems with map & encap schemes, and we were 
hoping that others would chime in on both the negative and positive 
aspects of such schemes (some people have done this).  Our post was only 
meant to open up a discussion about the highest level of the decision 
tree and voice an initial opinion.

-Michael and Dan

--
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