RE: [RRG] Text proposal: mapping granularity

["Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>]

Strictly speaking, this is not always true.  See AppleTalk, which uses a
notion of cable ranges.  This of course begs the question: how do you deal
with overlapping aggregates?  Longest match is no longer meaningful.

If the IETF wants to deal with this issue, they're more than welcome to do
so.  ;-)

Tony
 

|-----Original Message-----
|From: owner-rrg@psg.com [mailto:owner-rrg@psg.com] On Behalf 
|Of Scott Brim
|Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 1:49 PM
|To: 'Routing Research Group'
|Subject: Re: [RRG] Text proposal: mapping granularity
|
|Excerpts from Robin Whittle on Fri, Mar 21, 2008 03:02:23PM +1100:
|> > How about we just rephrase it to be "contiguous blocks of
|> > identifiers"?
|> 
|> This would be great.  It would be brief, unambiguous and would mean
|> that the mapping system wasn't constrained to provide micronets (EID
|> prefixes) with lengths only in powers of two.
|
|In reality ranges are always implemented as powers of two.  What's the
|point?
|
|--
|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
|


--
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