Hi Dr. Blake, Thank you for the comments. In response, I will try to clarify our definition of 'separation' and 'elimination'.
On Sun, 2008-09-21 at 14:27 -0400, Steven Blake wrote: > The statement in your paper that I pointed out is still false. The > mapping change for GSE you point out above is the exact same mapping > change needed for an elimination scheme (modulo any splitting of RG > and ESD+STP in the DNS). > Elimination refers to eliminating the use of PI addresses. Separation does not eliminate the use of PI, but places PI outside of routable space which requires a mapping. So either get all edge sites off of PI(elimination) or let them use PI and map/resolve their addresses somehow to a routable PA address(separation). > The definition you are using for separation in your paper is either > inconsistent, or not very useful. The definition is not inconsistent(see above). The utility of the definition and categorization I'll leave for others to judge. There are schemes that fall under elimination - they don't use unroutable PI and thus need no PI->PA mapping. For awhile, multipath transport was discussed(not necessarily by the authors) as a way to eliminate the need for PI to support multihoming, which would hopefully get edge sites off of PI and into PA, thus relieving our scalability issue. Thank you again for taking time to review our work. All further comments are welcome. Dan Jen -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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