Re: [RRG] Re: [RAM] How to avoid black-hole in LISP-CONS with aggregation mechanism?

[Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>]

On 8/30/07 6:56 AM, Xu Xiaohu allegedly wrote:
> Hi,
> Once aggregating to the same level with same mask-lengths is
> adopted, it may result in inefficient lookup. For example, CDR-11
> within level-1 CDR-mesh is authoritative for 1.1.0.0/16, with
> 1.1.1.0/24 and 1.1.2.0/24 in its EID-prefix table, and CDR-12 with
> level-1 CDR-mesh is authoritative for 1.2.0.0/16, with only
> 1.2.1.0/24 in its EID-prefix table. Should both of them push
> 1.0.0.0/8 to their common parent CDR-mesh which is authoritative for
> 1.0.0.0/8?
>
> IMO, it's better that CDR-11 pushes 1.1.0.0/16 and CDR-12 pushes
> 1.2.1.0/24 to their common parent CDR-mesh. As long as the
> aggregation does not exceed its authoritative address space, it's
> OK.

That's right.  There is no need for all children to have the same
prefix lengths, and the key restriction is to stay within the
delegated prefix.

Scott

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com 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