[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Generic requirements on mapping mechanisms
On 3/11/08 10:15 AM, Olivier Bonaventure allegedly wrote:
1. Locators and EIDs
Locators and EIDs will be allocated by a central authority, such as IANA
or deleguates like RIPE, ARIN, APNIC, ... This central authority is
important to ensure uniqueness of the locators and of the EIDs.
s/authority/authorities/. The authorities for Locators and EIDs could
be independent, and different EID address families could also use
different authorities.
To avoid the scalability problems that we have today with interdomain
routing, the owner of the EIDs should support the cost of using small
EID sets. A possible way to ensure this would be to force the an owner
of an EID block to always reply with a mapping that is valid for the
entire block and optionnally add mappings for subsets of the EID block,
e.g. for traffic engineering purposes.
You imply that if long prefixes are "advertised", nodes other than the
owner will suffer. Not necessarily -- depending on the mapping system
design. Would your real requirement be that nodes not be required to
maintain the entire EID prefix set?
4. A mapping will have a limited lifetime.
No mapping can be permament and the mapping reply should contain the
lifetime of this mapping. This is similar to the TTL in the DNS. A long
lifetime will favor scalability while a shorter lifetime will ease
traffic engineering by allowing a site to update regularly its map
replies. As for requirement 2, the cost of using short lifetimes should
be supported by the site that is using those short lifetimes, not by the
entire mapping system.
I don't know how to do that. Can you give an example?
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