Subject: Re: [RRG] Renumbering...

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:21:43 +1200

Tony,

On 2008-08-20 12:06, Tony Li wrote:
>  
> 
> |Yes, that is my answer concerning readdressing and I would be very
> |shocked if any large end user would answer differently. 
> |However, the NAT
> |part of your summary is an assertion of yours that I don't buy 
> |into -- I
> |don't see any correlation between PI and NATs. They are independent
> |concepts.
> 
> 
> Simply this: if sites aren't willing to renumber, then the architecture
> needs to allow them to not renumber and still scale.  In the current
> architecture, that implies that sites would need NAT, or some similar
> 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, leaving
> us back at the translation solution.

I think we have a sense of the scale that bothers us for the RIB/FIB,
namely going much above a million entries. Do we have a similar sense
for the mapping table? (In other words, what will be the required
granularity of the aggregates in the map?)

     Brian

--
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