Short version: Ran hasn't yet explained why he thinks the CEE/CES
distinction is unimportant, non-architectural etc.
Hi Ran,
Do you think your choice Locator / Identifier Separation for ILNP is
important? I think it is the most important architectural choice in
your
Folks,
In this context, I think you might be interested in a measurement study
that will be presented at INFOCOM this coming week. The focus of the
study is BGP scalability with respect to churn rates. We have analyzed
six years of Routeviews BGP update traces from four monitors in
different
One list member informed me privately of their perception that I was
demanding that people write critiques and that people argue the case,
in detail, for their opinions - rather than just stating their opinions.
I can't and don't demand anything. I suggest these as a good way of
making further
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Robin Whittle wrote:
Also, as just mentioned by Amund Kvalbein:
BGP churn evolution: A perspective from the core
http://simula.no/research/nd/publications/Simula.nd.435/simula_pdf_file
Yes, saw the post of that. Its conclusion does not disagree with
Geoff's results,
Hi Paul,
You wrote:
You have asserted there is no routing scaling problem,
Did I?
Could you go perhaps go back to my message where I said how I
wished to vote. I think you'll find you've misunderstood me.
I have not mentioned anything about voting - there is no voting in
the RRG, and I
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Robin Whittle wrote:
I thought that you were arguing against the existence of the
routing scaling problem, because in your first message in this
thread, you wrote:
However, it does not seem justified to say the current routing
architecture has a scaling problem.
