Subject: [rrg] "not at all sure that the terms CES and CEE are even useful" !?

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:05:19 +1100

Hi Joel,

In the thread "Multiple critiques, choice of single proposal,
consensus on constraints due to voluntary adoption?" (msg05867)
you wrote:

>   First note that I am not at all sure that the
>   terms CES and CEE are even useful. I will use
>   them to respond to you, but since they largely
>   represent specific points in engineering
>   tradeoffs, they actually make the discussion
>   harder.

I would really appreciate you writing why you disagree with:

  CES & CEE are completely different (graphs)
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05865.html

CEE and CES are both capable, in principle, of solving the routing
scaling problem.  Everything else about them is different.  To
characterise their differences as merely "engineering tradeoffs"
makes no sense to me.  CEE completely changes how all hosts will
communicate and leaves the routing system as it is.  CES does not
alter how hosts communicate, but involves adding things to the
routing system.

Trail bikes and goats are both observed traversing mountains.  The
distinction between goats and motorbikes goes well beyond engineering
- they are architecturally completely different.

Aircraft designers don't dismiss the differences between jet
aircraft, helicopters and blimps as being minor engineering matters -
or state that these terms are not useful.

You co-chair the LISP WG.  LISP and Ivip are CES architectures.

There are bunch of CEE architectures being considered by the RRG.
They achieve routing scalability in a completely different way from
CES.  I know of no benefit or synergy which can result from starting
off with one architecture and then introducing the other.

  - Robin

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 10:04:53 +1100

Hi Lixia,

In the thread "Multiple critiques, choice of single proposal,
consensus on constraints due to voluntary adoption?" (msg05897) you
wrote:

> As Joel pointed out, CEE/CES is not architecture per se by itself.

I am perplexed by this, since I think the distinction between
Core-Edge Elimination and Core-Edge Separation is the most important
architectural issue in this field.

As I wrote to Joel, I would really appreciate you writing why you
disagree with:

  - Robin