Given that a LISP WG has been installed in the meantime, it would be of
general interest (I believe), to hear whether this has any impact on the RRG
activities&tasks, e.g. as to
a) observe LISP from the distance only,
b) search for other solutions,
c) extend the view by which to look at the problems:Why are things
sacrosanct such as
- the indeed orthogonality of intra and inter-domain routing
?
- the existing layer-2 / layer-3 separation although
additional (outer) data is needed by any solution
(incl.LISP) ?
- the prefix aggregation paradigm although it dosn't work for
multicast and although internet-TV to
millions of receivers might be the really big step in the
future?
Heiner
In einer eMail vom 10.06.2009 23:50:11 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
[email protected]:
Wow, real world beings have released Tony.
Joel,
Naming interface, not node, with (global) unicast addresses and mixing
inter-domain with intra-domain routing are ideas that we are looking at that,
in some peoples judgment, for some architectural directions, are likely to
be helpful, but actually we bear the burden of those two ideas every day
together with thousands of ignorant administrators and millions of
unsuspecting users.
Toni
> Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> No Toni. Those two ideas are neither "the" nor "premise" for the work
> of the RRG. They are ideas that we are looking at that, in some peoples
> judgment, for some architectural directions, are likely to be helpful.
>
> Joel
>
> Toni Stoev wrote:
> > Dear fellow (re)searchers,
> >
> > I like to remind you of the following:
> > Naming node, not interface, with locator and separating inter-domain
from intra-domain routing are both together the premises for reaching the
design goal of significantly improved routing scalability.
> >
> > Toni
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
