the text version is indeed much better for many people I believe
(though there still seem some strange char's in the text)
On Jan 18, 2010, at 7:27 PM, Charrie Sun wrote:
Hello all,
Since no one has written a critique of my LMS, I queried my
workmates and wrote a critique on it. As many people have pointed
out, LMS is a mapping mechanism and does not itself constitute a
whole solution for the scalability problem. Well the mechanism is
based on edge-core separations and can incorparate with proposals
that need a global mapping system, to enhance its functionalities.
I also wrote a brief critique on GLI-Split, since I think the
two separation planes it clarifies, including the separation between
identifier and locator and the separation between local and global
locator, can meet different needs of ISPs and hosts. I had some
discussions with Dr. Menth and wrote the critique based on the
discussions and rethinking. Welcome for complement and
rectifications on mine.
Attached is my critiques and warmly welcome for comments.
it seems to me that a major missing issue in LMS critique is an
articulation on the novelty: given this design is long after LISP-ALT,
what are the fundamental differences/new gains in LMS?
I read through the paper your summary pointed to (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05491.html
). Section 5 stated that
"The idea is similar to LISP+ALT while differs from it in several ways:
(1) As previous stated we place ETRs at the core, while LISP+ALT
places them at the edge;
(2) MNs maintain mapping data instead of ETRs.
(3) the structure is explicitly designed as to the layer number and
node degrees, which is unclear in LISP-ALT.
(4)ITR buffers the arriving packets when its cache failed to find a
mapping. In LISP+ALT now the implementation is just to drop the
packets."
None of the above points looks like essential to me.
Wonder what I missed?
Lixia
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
