Re: [RRG] Consensus check: mapping granularity

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-03-21 06:50, HeinerHummel@aol.com wrote:
>  
> In einer eMail vom 20.03.2008 17:59:34 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
> tony.li@tony.li:
> 
> I would  think that we would want to support it as the same level of
> scalability as  coarser aggregates.  However, we have not yet discussed what
> level of  scalability is a necessity.  Yet another item on the  discussion
> list...
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote from draft-carpenter-idloc-map-cons-01.txt:
> 4.6.  Scale
>  
>    We want no arbitrary scaling limits.  However, proposed  scaling
> targets are 10 to 100 billion Stacks (which scales the  Identifier
> Namespace), and 10 million sites.  Although the  latter does not
> directly scale the Internet's Locator Namespace,  it indicates the
> worst-case granularity of the routing table for  that Locator
> Namespace.  If we don't do better than random  allocation of address
> blocks to sites, we will end up with 10  million routing table
> entries.

These weren't consensus numbers. Since then, Tony has convinced me
that we need to allow mapping down to individual hosts as well
as aggregates (so my answer to his question is Yes), but we probably
need to increase the likely size of the map from 10 million
to 100 million. I think these changes are compatible, but note my
belief that aggregates as small as a SOHO network would be
very rare in the map. Others disagree, and that changes the
numbers substantially.

    Brian


--
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