Thus spake "Olivier Bonaventure" <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>
So after opening the discussion on this subject, the silence has been deafening. Therefore, I assume that we're all in agreement. ;-) Specifically, do we agree that: The identifier to locator mapping function should support mapping entries for both host identifiers and their aggregates.
"should"? I'd make that a MUST.
For scalability reasons, I would propose to define this requirement as follows :The identifier to locator mapping function MUST support mapping entries for aggregates of identifiers. It MAY also support mapping entries for host identifiers.
I cannot imagine how a mapping system could be capable of mapping aggregates of identifiers without also being capable of mapping individual ones.
Presumably we've all learned our lessons from the VLSM and CIDR days, and the aggregate would have some sort of size tagged to it (either a prefix length as in LISP or a run length as in Ivip). One extreme end of that size will be the entire identifier space, and the other end will be a single host. It's more work to make those things disallowed than it is to leave them in.
That said, there's plenty of reason to expect that mappings for individual hosts might be filtered out or prohibited for policy reasons, due to resource constraints. However, that's no reason to leave the capability out of the protocol level.
S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws theK5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
-- 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