Re: [RRG] Generic requirements on mapping mechanisms

[Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>]

On 3/11/08 4:42 PM, Olivier Bonaventure allegedly wrote:
> > and different EID address families could also use different authorities.
>
> Agreed, but I hope that there won't be too many EID address families.

I'm sure there will only be a few :-)

> Another way to express the requirement could be that nodes are not 
> forced to use the more specific mappings that they receive. 

I like it.

> > > 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?
>
> In the case of the DNS, some of the cost of using short TTLs is 
> supported by the owner of the domain names with a short TTL. The 
> resolvers of nodes that resolve those domain names also suffer some 
> cost, but the nodes that do not contact these domain names do not suffer 
>  the additional cost. In this case, there is some cost (replying to more 
> DNS requests) for the domain that chooses to use short lifetime. This is 
> not perfect since the resolvers that contact this domain also support 
> some cost.

OK.  I thought perhaps you had a way of removing even that cost.

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