Subject: [Fwd: Re: The problem of the framework draft]

From: Bala Rajagopalan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 16:01:03 -0500

-- 

Bala Rajagopalan
NEC USA, C&C Research Labs
4 Independence Way
Princeton, NJ 08540
U.S.A

Ph: +1-609-951-2969
Fax: +1-609-951-2499
Email: [email-masked]

Subject: Re: The problem of the framework draft
From: Bala Rajagopalan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 14:19:42 -0500

Masataka Ohta wrote:
> 
> 
> The basic problems of the current framework draft are that:
> 
>         The draft says some QoSR protocols have problems, which
>         does not mean all the QoSR protocols have the same
>         problems.

No. The draft describes the QoSR problems and points out
some approaches that have been tried out. It also points out that
there may be a diversity of solutions for these problems.
> 
>         The draft says some QoSR protocols have problems, and
>         expect that some inter-domain QoSR can magically solves
>         the problem.

No. The draft suggests that sufficient lattitude be allowed to
implement different solution approaches. If in the near future the
world concludes, as any reasonable person might expect, that
Path QoS collection is the way to go, then nothing in the draft
prevents the deployment of this panacea everywhere.

> 
>         The draft does not show inter/intra domain separation
>         possible.

The draft advocates work in this direction. Any actual specification
is outside the scope of this draft.

> 
>         The draft does not specify the interface (if any, at all)
>         between inter/intra domain QoSR, which makes many
>         (if not all) intra domain QoSR can not interoperate
>         with inter domain QoSR.

See above.
> 
>         The draft debates that the introduction of routing hierarchy is
>         necessary and wrongly concludes that inter/intra domain
>         separation necessary.

The reason for advocating inter/intra form of routing is explained
well enough. I don't see why it is "wrong". 

-- 

Bala Rajagopalan
NEC USA, C&C Research Labs
4 Independence Way
Princeton, NJ 08540
U.S.A

Ph: +1-609-951-2969
Fax: +1-609-951-2499
Email: [email-masked]

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 98 18:40:51 JST

Bala;

> there may be a diversity of solutions for these problems.

You can always say "there may be a diversity of solutions for these
problems", which does not mean there is.

> prevents the deployment of this panacea everywhere.

The draft says: 

:	it is recommended that the following 
:	two-pronged approach be employed towards its development:
:
:              .....
:
:	This approach follows the traditional separation between
:	intra and interdomain routing.

If you agree that the separation may not be necessary, the framework
document MUST say so.

> is outside the scope of this draft.

The draft advocates, somewhat wrongly IMHO, on flow aggregation and
link state aggregation is necessary, which has nothing to do with
the separation.

The draft, then, shows the separated framework without giving
the framework of the separation.

That's all.

							Masataka Ohta