Strictly speaking, this is not always true. See AppleTalk, which uses a notion of cable ranges. This of course begs the question: how do you deal with overlapping aggregates? Longest match is no longer meaningful.
If the IETF wants to deal with this issue, they're more than welcome to do so. ;-) Tony |-----Original Message----- |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf |Of Scott Brim |Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 1:49 PM |To: 'Routing Research Group' |Subject: Re: [RRG] Text proposal: mapping granularity | |Excerpts from Robin Whittle on Fri, Mar 21, 2008 03:02:23PM +1100: |> > How about we just rephrase it to be "contiguous blocks of |> > identifiers"? |> |> This would be great. It would be brief, unambiguous and would mean |> that the mapping system wasn't constrained to provide micronets (EID |> prefixes) with lengths only in powers of two. | |In reality ranges are always implemented as powers of two. What's the |point? | |-- |to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the |word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. |archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg | -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
