Re: [RRG] Separation vs. Elimination

[Dan Jen <jenster@cs.ucla.edu>]

Hi,

Thanks for the comments.  Response inline.

On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 23:01 +0200, Michael Menth wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> I read the paper and liked it. Very clear and to the point!
> 
> Just one comment. The terms "separation" and "elimination" do not
> really 
> correspond to each other as the first term points to the solution and 
> the second term to a result. Elimination of longer prefixes from BGP 
> routing tables by multi-homed end nodes corresponds to hiding these 
> prefixes by routing separation. I hope this makes clear what I mean.


I think I understand your comment.  We attempted to have both terms
point to solutions to scalability. 'Elimination' solutions attempt to
solve the scalability problem by eliminating the USE of PI prefixes by
edge networks.  'Separation' solutions attempt to solve the scalability
problem by still allowing PI prefixes to be USED, but to separate such
prefixes from core routing.  It's true that separation solutions
ELIMINATE PI prefixes from appearing in the bgp routing tables, but when
we used 'elimination' we were referring to eliminating the USAGE of PI
prefixes altogether.  I hope that explains the rationale behind our
chosen terms.  Let us know if there are any other suggestions for
improvements.


Dan Jen


--
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