On Dec 30, 2009, at 12:02 AM, Paul Francis wrote:
....
In terms of scaling the DFZ routing, RANGI's solution closely
resembles that of ILNP based on locator rewrite at border routers.
Architecturally it seems best to put the mapping function at the end
host (versus at the edge). This simplifies the neighbor aliveness
and
delayed first packet problems, and avoids stateful middleboxes.
Unfortunately the early-adopter incentive for host upgrade strikes me
as weak at best.
Adding the DFZ scaling sentence at the beginning of this paragraph
produces a non-sequitur.
More importantly, as Huawei mentioned in his last email, the
rewriting is
for incoming traffic engineering at multihomed sites, not for
scaling DFZ
routing. I suggest we just remove the DFZ sentence (I'm not sure what
point you are trying to make with it).
I am trying to identify commonalities of mechanisms among different
proposals.
More generally, I wrote the initial critique in the first person, and
included a few statements which are clearly meant to be my opinion
rather
than fact per se. I was under the impression that there could be
multiple
critiques per proposal, each written by an individual or group. Is
this
the case, or is there supposed to be one critique per proposal?
the latter, that's the only reason I changed your text
If the
former, I'd prefer just to keep the critique as originally written.
If the
latter, then I'd like to modify the proposal to remove the first
person
perspective and opinions.
PF
please feel free to revise, and fix any errors you thought I introduced.
Lixia
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
