Imho, it would be wrong to go for an architecture which either says "I am
network-based" resp. "I am host-based". The right architecture is
something which discovers and serves the needs of the network layer as such
i.e.
which considers both routers and hosts and assigns them the appropriate task.
It would be important to overcome the orthogonality between intra- and
inter-domain routing and it would be awfully bad to install another
orthogonality being CES-versus-CEE.
Heiner
In einer eMail vom 04.02.2010 16:50:33 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu:
> From: Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>
> To me, CES seemed to be 'map-and-encap' and CEE was 'everything else'.
> From: Scott Brim <scott.b...@gmail.com>
> it seems that some approaches just don't fit in it.
If something represents a set of choices along a number of orthagonal axes
(e.g. 'map-and-encaps' plus 'invisibly map in proxies' plus 'caching
mappings' plus etc etc), then it may be useful to give that _set_ of
choices
a name.
However, with terminology which labels one particular set of design choices
'{set X}', but then goes on to label everything else 'not-{set X}', the
latter term is not at all useful. It is kind of like saying that my name is
'not-Tony-Li'. The problem is that in such a system, everyone else (except
Tony :-) is also named 'not-Tony-Li' - and that is not very useful for
distinguishing among all the (very different :-) individuals who are not
'Tony Li'.
Equally importantly, if you have a design choice _axis_ (e.g. caching
versus
non-caching), different points on that axis can usefully be named.
But 'not-{set X}' names are not useful.
> From: Scott Brim <scott.b...@gmail.com>
>> "The CES vs. CEE distinction does not arise from whether hosts are
>> altered or not. It arises from the fundamentally different mechanisms
>> which are used by these two different types of architecture to achieve
>> scalable routing."
> the two different approaches it distinguishes between are to separate
> edge routing/addressing from non-edge and eliminating the distinction.
If your summation is right, I think I'm starting to grasp what these terms
are trying to get at, and it might be useful architectural terminology.
> But that's just one criterion, and not every approach benefits from its
> use.
Sure, just like the 'cache mappings' versus 'full distribution of
mappings'
distinction doesn't apply if you don't have a system with things like xTRs
which handle the mapping process for large groups of entities. But that is
still an axis of architectural choice, just one that doesn't apply to all
potential designs.
But even if CEE/CES does not apply in all cases, that does not mean it is
not
an axis (as opposed to a description of a particular set of design
choices).
>From your summation above, it seems like it might be...
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
