Subject: [CCAMP] Question on Extended Association I-D

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 22:00:19 +0000

Hi,

Can you tell me, how many associations do you think you actually need?
Certainly 2**48 should be enough.
And, you are making the claim that 2**16 is too few (although I wonder how many
deployments have used more than 2**8 associations).

I'm wondering whether 2**20 or 2**24 might be enough.

If it was, then there is no need to extend the Association object because there
are plenty of Association type values available. 

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 17:42:30 -0500

Hi Adrian,
	We have two requirements driving changing/extending the association 
object.  The first is not covered in the current rev of the document, 
but was in the slides presented in Beijing, is to support the IP 
identifiers document and TP Global identifiers in particular.

The second is to support a more centralized model for the determination 
of associations.  In such a centralized case, a very large number of 
associations are possible.  Francois and Ashok are the advocates for 
this.  Some of their original motivation can be found in 
draft-narayanan-tsvwg-rsvp-resource-sharing-01.  They'll need to field 
any follow-ups on this requirement.

Lou (as co-author)

On 12/10/2010 5:00 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>
>
>
>