Subject: Re: [RRG] Renumbering...

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:03:42 +0200

Tony,
> Thanks, but I'm not going to be accepting that anytime soon.  When true PI
> is a requirement, then the 'net cannot possible scale.  Period.  Full stop.
>    

 From my perspective PI is absolutely a requirement.  And I would also 
agree with Noel that the problem isn't the Boeings of the world, but 
rather it's the consumers who decide that they too would like to have 
redundant PI connectivity.  We have an existence proof that we can at 
least change the equation, although we disagree on how the equation is 
changed.  Which brings us to this:

> Map and encap does not 'solve' the problem, it only pushes it from BGP into
> the mapping function.  Of course, if BGP is also used as the mapping
> function, it's largely the same problem.
>
>    
By adding an additional layer of indirection LISP hasn't just moved the 
problem, but changed its nature.  The different mapping systems change 
that nature slightly differently, and so the costs for each are slightly 
different.  It's probably worth more time to characterize the change and 
then evaluate it against the renumbering challenge.  For example, having 
a 10^9 entries in a table doesn't cost you all THAT much if you are at 
the edge and only use a small portion of them in a fairly predictable 
way.  OR... don't have the table, establish a strict directory hierarchy 
and make a query into that periodically.  In either case, it's different 
sorts of state that should be evaluated differently.  It's not just more 
prefixes.

Eliot

Eliot

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] 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