From: Michael Meisel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >For a long term solution, we believe some decoupling of the network customers >and transit networks is necessary. The conflict over PI addresses is a clear >example of the need to decouple. In the long term, it also opens up a number >of new possibilities at both sides for scaling and routing changes in the core >and techniques to exploit mapping service for new features at the edges.
I value your posting and believe that it accurately reflects the viewpoint of many of the stake holders, including the large corporate end user. I am confident that you already know that the actual situation is more complicated than you stated but I believe that your summary is generally accurate at a semi-high level of abstraction. I interpret your posting as building upon Lixia's and Scott's draft-rrg-taxonomy-00.txt by suggesting that the map and encaps alternative is the most compelling. However, I would prefer that such a decision be based upon modeling and simulation or some other analytical technique. While I certainly concur with your logic, I do not believe that we yet have documented technical evidence to prefer one generic approach over another at this time. -- 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
