[rrg] Fundamental objections to a host-based scalableroutingsolution

[Lan Wang]

On Dec 3, 2008, at 8:55 PM, Tony Li wrote:

>
>
> Hi Eric,
>
>
> |>> How can hosts make requests of the network today? The only direct
> |>> mechanism that I am aware of is QoS.
>
>
> IGMP and ARP immediately come to mind.  Various other IP options,
> traceroute, ping, etc. ...
>
> Take a look at the OAM discussion that's going on in CCAMP right  
> now.  How
> do we debug the network if we can't send requests from the host?
>
>
> |The nature of my push-back to Tony is that I believe that the
> |capabilities that Tony was ascribing to hosts aren't capabilities  
> that
> |actually are available to hosts at all. Rather, they are capabilities
> |that are available to networks because of map-and-encaps (e.g.,  
> MPLS).
>
>
> Let's be careful.  MPLS is an encapsulation, to be sure, but  
> there's not a
> lot of 'mapping' going on.  Sure, with an L3VPN or TE solution, you  
> have a
> FEC that forwards your packets down a particular LSP, but all of  
> this is
> based on pushed or configured routing information.  Not the same  
> thing at
> all.  As we've said before many times, the mapping is a very tricky  
> part of
> the equation.
>
> Also, we should note that the reason that we get benefits from MPLS  
> is that
> it allows us to have a hybrid network architecture, where we can  
> support
> both connectionless (i.e. packet switching) and connection oriented  
> (i.e.
> circuit switching) styles.  If we go down the path of map-&-encap,  
> we're
> effectively deciding to run on top of a connection oriented  
> infrastructure.

Could you clarify your last sentence?  It's unclear to me how map-&- 
encap and connection-oriented infrastructure are related here ...

Lan

> What then happens to the hybrid strength of the architecture?
>
> Tony
>
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> rrg at irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg