Re: [RRG] Separation vs. Elimination

[Steven Blake <slblake@petri-meat.com>]

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:
> 
> http://conferences.sigcomm.org/hotnets/2008/papers/18.pdf
> 
> 
> 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
                             ^s
transit addresses." on page 2 is false.  GSE, for instance, requires no
such mapping.


Regards,

// Steve


--
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