Thus spake "Olivier Bonaventure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So after opening the discussion on this subject, the silence has been
deafening. Therefore, I assume that we're all in agreement. ;-)
Specifically, do we agree that:
The identifier to locator mapping function should support mapping entries
for both host identifiers and their aggregates.
"should"? I'd make that a MUST.
For scalability reasons, I would propose to define this requirement as
follows :
The identifier to locator mapping function MUST support mapping entries
for aggregates of identifiers. It MAY also support mapping entries for
host identifiers.
I cannot imagine how a mapping system could be capable of mapping aggregates
of identifiers without also being capable of mapping individual ones.
Presumably we've all learned our lessons from the VLSM and CIDR days, and
the aggregate would have some sort of size tagged to it (either a prefix
length as in LISP or a run length as in Ivip). One extreme end of that size
will be the entire identifier space, and the other end will be a single
host. It's more work to make those things disallowed than it is to leave
them in.
That said, there's plenty of reason to expect that mappings for individual
hosts might be filtered out or prohibited for policy reasons, due to
resource constraints. However, that's no reason to leave the capability out
of the protocol level.
S
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
--
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
