In einer eMail vom 02.03.2010 01:19:31 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com:
On 2010-03-02 12:36, heinerhum...@aol.com wrote: ... > Statement: Neither LISP nor any of all the other submitted solutions do > reduce the number of routes > - not even by the number 1. IMHO the issue is not to reduce the number of routes but to limit their growth. At the moment they seem to be limited loosely like the square root of the size of the Internet, and our goal is presumably to limit them more strongly than that -- log(N) would be lovely. Well, TARA would reduce the number of stored routes to zero. If there are 1 million routes, it would reduce them by 1 million, if there were 100 million routes, it would reduce them by 100 million. And in addition: it would provide a multitude of (detouring) routes of whichever of the taken figure which DV will never be able to provide. There is a lot of speculation in this, but since the pressure towards route de-aggregation seems to come mainly from PI addressing and the demand for multihoming, a solution that enables PA aggregation seems certain to limit growth, compared to doing nothing. There are a number of solutions in the list that appear to do this. See the other email from/to _darle...@cisco.com_ (mailto:darle...@cisco.com) : This extra-factor due to de-aggregation is taken care of by LISP, or isn't it ? Heiner Brian
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
