Re: [RRG] Separation vs. Elimination

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

Hi Dr. Blake,

Thank you for the comments.  In response, I will try to clarify our
definition of 'separation' and 'elimination'.

On Sun, 2008-09-21 at 14:27 -0400, Steven Blake wrote:
> The statement in your paper that I pointed out is still false.  The
> mapping change for GSE you point out above is the exact same mapping
> change needed for an elimination scheme (modulo any splitting of RG
> and ESD+STP in the DNS).
> 

Elimination refers to eliminating the use of PI addresses. Separation
does not eliminate the use of PI, but places PI outside of routable
space which requires a mapping.  

So either get all edge sites off of PI(elimination) or let them use PI
and map/resolve their addresses somehow to a routable PA
address(separation).  

> The definition you are using for separation in your paper is either
> inconsistent, or not very useful.

The definition is not inconsistent(see above).  The utility of the
definition and categorization I'll leave for others to judge.  There are
schemes that fall under elimination - they don't use unroutable PI and
thus need no PI->PA mapping.  For awhile, multipath transport was
discussed(not necessarily by the authors) as a way to eliminate the need
for PI to support multihoming, which would hopefully get edge sites off
of PI and into PA, thus relieving our scalability issue.  


Thank you again for taking time to review our work.  All further
comments are welcome.


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