[RRG] Not moving the problem to the global mapping system

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

On 2008-04-10 17:54, Michael Meisel wrote:
...
> I think we should ask this question in terms of the problems we are
> trying to solve. As we all know, one of these problems is the frequency
> of BGP updates today, which are largely coming from edge network. To put
> it a different way, the problem is that the reachability information for
> even the smallest of edge networks is announced globally. Each update
> requires a significant amount of processing by each node that it passes
> through. So the mapping system better not suffer from this same problem,
> or we haven't done any good!
> 
> So, specifically, we should be asking:
> 
> (1) Is the mapping function successful in preventing edge network
> reachability from being propagated into the global routing system?
> 
> (2) If yes, does it do so without simply moving the problem to the
> global mapping system?
> 
> Note that proposals that both (a) put reachability information into the
> mapping system and (b) involve any sort of push model start to look a
> lot like BGP, and therefore are going to have a hard time answering
> "yes" to (2) convincingly.

I can't say how much I agree with this. If the mapping system
degenerates into a reachability-driven routing system, we might
just as well switch to two layers of BGP immediately.

I would suggest turning this into a concrete goal, such as:

<strawman>
The update rate in the mapping system should be at least
two orders of magnitude less than the update rate in
the BGP4 system, at any point in time.
</strawman>

   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