[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] What do we have consensus on?
- To: Routing Research Group <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Joel M. Halpern" <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [RRG] What do we have consensus on?
- From: Peter Sherbin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 07:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=DpNZ6ODfNb1+mZRBBz65wJZmlnGeKmkNQh1S02VOyZbcPjgUv0/1rH0IfQW89Dgb/brOUfovZtpctVB9KNS3l9WU1O7rmmY8ohr0UP7BJxFGXc6U055I26Fo+D3FzzmKD/bGk4vAh6vYqN+zDVts0E7YbyiUp8zdnFTSi2EneyE=;
- Reply-to: email@example.com
> draft-halpern-rrg-taxonomy-00.txt.... I would appreciate comments
2. Terminology. Both a 'Core Aggregatable Address' and a 'Scoped Address' use an 'address' in their definition while the address itself remains undefined.
There are three Entity Identifiers. Would it be enough to have just one global identifier for a point of connection to the network (a node if there is only one interface, an interface if a node has more than one). Also a definition of a 'Communicating EI' equals to a 'Scoped EI' when binary is used for the later. Would it suffice to have a single global EI with the scope determined solely by the locator?
3. New Math or New Naming. Mapping combines split attempts separately from geo / AS aggregation. Why / how does aggregation prevents the splitting? E.g. in a split the network (locator) part still can be aggregated by geography or AS.
4. Divide and Conquer. Why consider 'Identification by name'? DNS is a limited subset of the Internet where a human-readable name is needed. The majority of network elements remain transparent to a human end-user of the application.
4.1. What mappings? Why mapping is needed is there is a split, i.e. an id part is added to a locator part to establish a routing end point?
5.3. Separate Identification. Why the oversimplified form is not good? If it is insufficient, what is lacking? If it works, what benefits are gained by adding complexity?
6. Scoping. The 3rd paragraph is confusing as it refers to the scope of identifiers. The scope is a property of a locator, right?
--- On Tue, 5/27/08, Joel M. Halpern <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> From: Joel M. Halpern <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: [RRG] What do we have consensus on?
> To: "Routing Research Group" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2008, 10:05 AM
> Lixia Zhang wrote:
> > On May 21, 2008, at 8:28 PM, Robin Whittle wrote:
> >> Hi Tony and Lixia,
> >> Can you list what decisions the RRG has achieved
> consensus on?
> > Hi Robin,
> > instead of replying to each of your bullets below,
> here is what I
> > thought where we are at this time: recall the
> discussions we started in
> > April following the message on RRG process
> > We need to first come to some agreement on the
> very highest
> > level branches in the decision tree (e.g., do we
> do map-and-encap
> > or translation or ???)
> > Towards the above goal, one step is to first reach a
> > understanding of exactly how many branches we face at
> that highest level
> > branching point.
> MY personal start on high level branches (something akin to
> facets, and
> the aspects of each top level facet, although probably not
> strictly a
> faceted taxonomy)), along with some suggested terminology
> is in
> While that document can definitely still use further
> clarifications, I
> would appreciate comments from other folks on its content
> before I
> produce -01.
> Thank you,
> Joel M. Halpern
> to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
> word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message
> text body.
> archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> &
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org 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