Tony Li allegedly wrote on 02/03/2010 23:35 EST: > On 2/3/10 7:31 PM, "Noel Chiappa" <j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote: > >> Someone pointed out to me that although I've been using the terms CEE and CES >> as synonomous for the terms 'host-centric' and 'edge-centric' (and >> 'network-centric' completes the list), that for others they seemingly aren't >> exactly synonomous, but subtly different. >> >> Can someone confirm this, and explain what the differences are? >> >> I'll be using 'host-centric', etc from now on. My apologies if I have >> inadvertently caused any confusion by using them as synonyms for >> 'host-centric' >> and 'edge-centric'. > > To me, CES seemed to be 'map-and-encap' and CEE was 'everything else'.
To me, they are different ways to take a step from where we are now. We currently have edge sites injecting their prefixes upstream at various points in the topology -- either PI or PA -- and having them routed instead of being aggregated immediately. CES refers to getting rid of that by not having edge site prefixes seen upstream at all. CEE refers to getting rid of that by having pure PA-based aggregatation (multiply connected sites get multiple PA aggregates). CEE implies some changes to both hosts and edge site operations, but isn't "host-centric". I'm not sure that term is useful when talking about routing and addressing architecture. Changes to hosts might derive from the changes to routing and addressing but aren't central to them. > While that's certainly a distinction, it's clearly not the only one and > perhaps not the optimally constructive one. I think it's one clear metric for evaluating next steps from where we are, but it seems that some approaches just don't fit in it. I think it's still useful if an approach does fall in it, in that it bundles up implications. "such-and-such is CES. Oh, so that means it has the following issues to figure out ..." _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
