Re: [RRG] Text proposal: mapping granularity

[Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>]

Excerpts from Tony Li on Thu, Mar 20, 2008 08:48:41PM -0700:
>  
> Hi Robin,
> 
> |A more thorough version of the last sentence might be:
> |
> |     Thus, any mapping solution which can support more detailed
> |     granularity is in principle capable of supporting a separate
> |     mapping for every host identifier in the address space.  Since
> |     different mapping solutions have different practical upper
> |     limits on the number of mappings they can support, the ability
> |     of a mapping system to support individual host identifier
> |     granularity does not imply that a practical implementation
> |     could necessarily cope with such a large number of mappings.
> 
> 
> Seems reasonable.  Any objections?

I don't think it adds.  "In theory it could support a huge number of
entries, but in reality it won't be able to."  That's beside the
point.  The real point is that if you're going to support fine
granularity, you need to do a good job at it -- as was in the text
that I recommended you save in my last message:

>    Shifting the scalability problem from today's routing protocols
>    and forwarding plane to tomorrow's mapping function simply moves
>    the problem.  Thus, any mapping solution that is going to have
>    detailed granularity must also have commensurate scaling
>    properties.               

--
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