Hi Tony, You wrote:
>> I am requesting you write detailed arguments for your positions - >> including detailed critiques of arguments against CEE (Locator / >> Identifier Separation) and of arguments for CES architectures. > > I respectfully decline. Thanks, but I have a day job. OK. > Also, we've been over (and over and over) the points here repeatedly. Can you point to some messages or other documents where you or others argue that the delays, extra packets, extra complexity etc. I believe Loc/ID Separation forces on all hosts are either non-existent or a price worth paying for saving on the additional routing system complexity required by the only other obvious solution - Core-Edge Separation (ITRs, ETRs and tunneling)? > Unlike some people, I don't believe that endless restatement of the same > points, infinite volume, or downright stubbornness will prove to be > convincing. I've plead my case. Mostly in person, sorry Robin, and it > seems to have not resonated with many others. OK I don't believe this either. If I restate something on the list it is because I perceive it is important and hasn't been debated yet. Some folks who are involved in the RRG don't get to meet you in person or talk with you by phone. > I'm not here to argue for the sake of argument or to hear the sound of my > own (virtual) voice. Me either. > I'm happy to have a reasoned debate about > architectural issues, but I'm not about to have another yes-no-yes-no > argument and I'm not interested in debating mechanisms. Are you interested in debating anything on the list? What do you suggest other people should debate? Can you point to where you lead by example - where you discussed whatever it is you regard as "architecture" in a manner which, if others responded in a similar fashion, what you regard as a good debate would have eventuated? > I reject the classification of CEE vs CES. To me that division is about as > useful as the set of proposals that begin with the letter 'I'. Sure, it's a > division, but it doesn't really tell us anything insightful about the > solution space. OK - this is your view. Like Ran, Joel and Lixia who have also expressed this view, you haven't written to the list why you regard this distinction as being of no architectural or practical significance. Other people think it is an important and meaningful distinction. To see why I think it is architecturally important please see the messages I link to in msg06187. My attempt to trace the history of the terms and to discuss some ambiguities in what is being "separated" in Core-Edge Separation can be found in msg06110. I thought you would see this distinction as architectural and important. I would appreciate it if you pointed to any other architectural issues, distinctions, etc. in this field which you think are more valid, more useful or whatever than than those I discuss in: CES & CEE are completely different (graphs) http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05865.html and also pointed out why the distinctions I mention in this message are invalid or unimportant. I would have thought you would agree that the choice of retaining the current IPv4/6 naming model or replacing it, for all hosts, with a Locator / ID Separation model is an architectural matter of the highest significance. CEE architectures do this and CES architectures don't. - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
