Re: [RRG] Six/One Router Design Clarifications

[Lixia Zhang <lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU>]

As a quick summary of what I saw so far on this thread of exchanges:  
to step up a level and focus on the "the highest level branching  
point" decision, our recent draft explains our current categorization  
of this highest level branch: separation vs elimination, i.e.  
separating edge/PI prefixes out of the transit core routing, versus  
eliminating edge/PI prefixes entirely (i.e. provider-topology  
aggregatable addresses go all the way inside host/transport)

in this categorization, six/one router's translation approach falls  
into the same separation category as map & encap.

I see great discussions regarding the pro's and con's from comparing  
encapsulation and translation; personally I view "encapsulation" as  
architecturally cleaner, but as the saying goes, every coin has 2  
sides, so we also want to see clearly the other side of the coin (the  
cost), and to see whether there are circumstances where translation  
approach would be considered.
Protocol designs are engineering, and engineering is about making the  
right trade-offs.  I feel that the current discussions on these trade- 
offs may well carry into IETF engineering phase after RRG makes our  
highest level design recommendation.

Lixia



--
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