Re: [RRG] Consensus check: mapping granularity

[Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>]

Hi Tony,

You wrote:

> Specifically, do we agree that:
> 
> The identifier to locator mapping function should support mapping entries
> for both host identifiers and their aggregates.

I understand this means individual IP addresses for IPv4 or IPv6, or
power of two spans of them.

Ivip uses any starting point with an integer length, so each
micronet can be of any size at all.  In practice, I would probably
have some length limit, but I haven't figured that out yet.  Also, I
would want a compact binary representation for IPv6 in the likely
event that everyone in fact specified their micronets as an integer
number of complete /64s.

I am not expecting a great deal of support for this, since I think
most folks are happy with 1, 2, 4, 256, 512 etc. IP addresses.

I would prefer something different, such as:

   The identifier to locator mapping function should support
   mapping entries covering a contiguous set of IP addresses
   of some arbitrary length 1 to some TBD maximum value.

But would be surprised if enough folks agreed to lead to rough
consensus for this, instead of your suggestion.

Examples of your suggestion would include, I think:

   2.2.2.0/32
   2.2.2.0/31
   2.2.2.0/24

What about this?

   2.2.2.1/24  = 2.2.2.1 to 2.2.3.0 inclusive?

Perhaps the next step - now or in the future, perhaps beyond the RRG
- is to define data formats, so we know how many bits are involved
in exactly specifying the starting and ending addresses of the
micronet, EID prefix or whatever.  This would help in estimating the
number of bytes required for each mapping update, which is
particularly important in a push or hybrid push-pull system.

 - Robin






--
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