On Jan 23, 2008, at 6:31 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
But is that the point? I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be able to map EIDs as long as /128. I'm suggesting that these will be a small minority, and that the size of the map is likely to be in the 10^8 range at most, sincemost of the entries will be sites (for some definition of "site", but on average, significantly larger than a single household).
A fair point, but I would certainly be more comfortable knowing that the mapping subsystem was designed to deal with the worst case load rather than simply the expected load.
Something about half-inch gusset plates on bridges comes to mind... ;-( Tony -- 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