Subject: RE: [RRG] Renumbering...

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:53:59 -0700

Hi Scott,

|Excerpts from Peter Sherbin at 08:49:41 -0700 on Wed 20 Aug 2008:
|> > translation solution.  If we go down the map-n-encap path, it
|> > implies that we need a mapping solution that does not require
|> > aggregation of the identifier space.  So far, there aren't a lot
|> > of those on the table...
|
|I missed this the first time around.  Tony, first you seem to be
|assuming that identifiers will be in network layer packet headers and
|that packets will be delivered using them (otherwise there would be no
|question of needing to aggregate "identifiers" in network layer
|routing).  Neither of these assumptions is required.  Identifiers are
|primarily useful for multipath management and session continuity.
|Identifiers may be in the network layer, and carried in network layer
|packet headers, for convenience of the endpoints, but that doesn't
|mean they should be included in routing information.

Given that we have no clear definition of what 'network layer' means in a
map-n-encap architecture, I'm not quite clear on what you're saying.  So
far, what I've seen is that map-n-encap architectures carry identifiers in
payload headers.  This is necessary up to the point of encapsulation, as you
have to have the data to perform the mapping lookup.  Again, you need to
have a very scalable mapping solution which in some cases seems to require
aggregation.  For the cases that do require aggregation, it would seem that
you have to be willing to renumber end-user sites either initially or when
the mapping provider changes.

Do you disagree with this?

Tony

--
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