The MPLS WG Archive

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com>]

Curtis,

> >    Wow,  such rapier-like wit and technical depth all wrapped in a
> > one-liner.  Now if you would like to help clarify the issue rather than
> > snipe at someone who is trying to be helpful, I for one would like to hear
> > your input.
> > --Jim
>
> Jim,
> 
> Maybe Yakov just didn't like the suggested term "augmented routing
> model".  I certainly didn't.

Yes, that was my point.

> I suggested that we make the distinction between "static overlay" and
> "signaled overlay".  What you describe as X would be signaled overlay.

Agreed.

> Curtis
> 
> btw- NHRP and MPOA might be bad examples.

just brain-damaged....

Yakov.

> 
> 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com>
> > To: James V. Luciani <jluciani@tollbridgetech.com>
> > Cc: Krishna Bala <kbala@tellium.com>; Jagan Shantigram <jagan@photonex.com>
;
> > Jonathan Lang <jplang@lux.chromisys.com>; <curtis@avici.com>; Khaled Elsaye
d
> > <khaled@ieee.org>; <mpls@UU.NET>; <ip-optical@lists.research.bell-labs.com>
> > Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 7:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ip-optical-framework-00.txt
> > 
> > 
> > > Jim,
> > >
> > > > > Just to beat a dead horse .. the difference between the open model
> > > > > and the overlay is just that the overlay model typically suggests tha
t
> > > >
> > > > That depends... see below.
> > > >
> > > > > there would be N^2 connectivity (i.e., every router, for instance, is
> > > > > statically connected to every other). In any case, the open model
> > allows
> > > >
> > > > While there may indeed be some misunderstanding as to the meaning of th
e
> > > > "overlay model" (not to mention the meaning of the other models :-)),
> > the
> > > > traditional definition of overlay is not one of static operation.  NHRP
> > and
> > > > MPOA, for example, are overlay in my book (and most folks that I know).
> > > >
> > > > They most certainly imply non-static connections by defintion (i.e., us
e
> > of
> > > > SVCs).  This having been said, I believe that we can do one of two
> > things
> > > > here.  One, keep the current terms and potentially risk an ad nauseum
> > > > inspection of the meaning of these terms; or two, come up with a term
> > which
> > > > is satisfactory to all.  In the second case we would have models:
> > > > 1) X
> > > > 2) Peer
> > > > where X is the PC term for what we want to get at.  So my opine is that
> > > > X="augmented routing model"/ARM model.
> > > >
> > > > Do I hear a hmmmm???
> > >
> > > I think you do. And it comes from you - it is your own hmmm.
> > >
> > > Yakov.
> > 
> > 
>