On Dec 29, 2008, at 10:40 PM, Robin Whittle wrote:
Here is my attempt to state which proposals match the various parts
of Bill's page (Draft 6):
http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures.html
I have no idea how to match the Strategy B variants to various
proposals, so I hope someone will clarify this. Likewise D and E.
Please suggest corrections and I will write up a final version at:
http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/rrgarch/
- Robin
Strategy A
These are core-edge separation schemes, with the new functionality
being implemented in the network (in or near DFZ, ISP and end-user
CE routers, but also for internal routers for Ivip forwarding
approaches). Will work with existing hosts (except that Ivip
forwarding and PMTUD management won't accept fragmentable
packets longer than a certain size.)
LISP in all its variants.
APT.
Ivip.
TRRP.
Six/One Router (for IPv6 only).
A paper arguing for this class of solutions (core-edge separation)
and against the "elimination" class (Strategy B) is:
Towards a Future Internet Architecture: Arguments for
Separating Edges from Transit Core
Dan Jen, Lixia Zhang, Lan Wang, Beichuan Zhang
http://conferences.sigcomm.org/hotnets/2008/papers/18.pdf
A1a, A1b, A1c.
I am not sure about these. Bill and I are discussing them:
http://www.irtf.org/pipermail/rrg/2008-December/000591.html
I also discuss potential improvements to the parts which
describe Ivip's forwarding approaches.
A2a LISP-NERD.
A2b Ivip and APT are covered by this, but it is not a complete
description of either.
A2c LISP-ALT and TRRP.
Where is Six/One Router covered? It doesn't have a specific
mapping distribution system, but I guess A2c is a likely
approach.
Hi Robin,
I believe APT is covered by A2c, not A2b.
In APT, Default mapper has all the mappings and Encoder/ITR request
and cache individual mappings when needed.
Thanks,
He Yan
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
