Subject: RE: [RRG] Renumbering...

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:45:49 -0400

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.

--
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