At least, I'm not the only one lagging behind. On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:42 PM, <mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote: > Dear Dae Young, > > Me too I failed to understand how ILNP solves the scalability issue. This is > not analysed in the three ILNP drafts neither in the recommendations document > edited by Tony. I suggested to Tony in the past to have more analysis text on > this point. > > The ILNP draft does not specify how to implement INLP in IPv4 environments. > Only a L32 is defined in the DNS ILNP draft. > > BTW, I'm not sure if the scalability issue can be solved in a PI scheme. > > Cheers, > Med > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : rrg-boun...@irtf.org [mailto:rrg-boun...@irtf.org] De la part de Dae > Young KIM > Envoyé : mercredi 26 mai 2010 13:47 > À : RRG > Objet : [rrg] ILNP q1: Scalability > > Hi, > > Now that the decision is made for ILNP and there's not yet the ILNP WG > formed, would it yet be appropriate to raise some questions in regard > to ILNP to facilitate better and clearer understanding of the > technology? > > Although some previous responses have been sometimes something like > 'you read the draft', to some slow people like me, there still remain > curiosities not to be cleared only out of the given text. Or the text > is too long to know where to find the answer. > > As long as this is a research group(RG), I'd assume there'd be some > room for pedagogical purposes, I'd hope. > > So, could anyone bother to give some comments to my following line of > thoughts, please? > > o I understand the granularity of the Locator is a subnet. > o As seen from outside of a given site, the effective granularity > of the Locators stemming out is a site, for all such Locators will > eventually be aggregated to a number representing the very site in a > single entry in the IDR router table. > o Even with the current Internet, the whole network prefixes > belonging to a well-behaved site would be aggregated to a single > shorter prefix representing the very site in a single entry in the IDR > router table. (.. except for some multi-homed hosts inside the site.) > > Then, here's the question: > > Q1: What is the gain of ILNP over the current system in terms of > its effectiveness in reducing the IDR table size? > > Perhaps, so obvious for the author or pros, but not to me at the moment, yet. > > -- > DY > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > rrg@irtf.org > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > > ********************************* > This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and > intended solely for the addressees. > Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. > Messages are susceptible to alteration. > France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed > or falsified. > If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it > immediately and inform the sender. > ******************************** > >
-- DY _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
