Hi Joel, In the thread "Multiple critiques, choice of single proposal, consensus on constraints due to voluntary adoption?" (msg05867) you wrote:
> First note that I am not at all sure that the > terms CES and CEE are even useful. I will use > them to respond to you, but since they largely > represent specific points in engineering > tradeoffs, they actually make the discussion > harder. I would really appreciate you writing why you disagree with: CES & CEE are completely different (graphs) http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05865.html CEE and CES are both capable, in principle, of solving the routing scaling problem. Everything else about them is different. To characterise their differences as merely "engineering tradeoffs" makes no sense to me. CEE completely changes how all hosts will communicate and leaves the routing system as it is. CES does not alter how hosts communicate, but involves adding things to the routing system. Trail bikes and goats are both observed traversing mountains. The distinction between goats and motorbikes goes well beyond engineering - they are architecturally completely different. Aircraft designers don't dismiss the differences between jet aircraft, helicopters and blimps as being minor engineering matters - or state that these terms are not useful. You co-chair the LISP WG. LISP and Ivip are CES architectures. There are bunch of CEE architectures being considered by the RRG. They achieve routing scalability in a completely different way from CES. I know of no benefit or synergy which can result from starting off with one architecture and then introducing the other. - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
