[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RRG] arguments for map and encap




On May 22, 2008, at 21:48, Tony Li wrote:

Except for traceability, fault isolation, etc., not to mention
latency of state-reestablishment after a crash in the absence
of an explicit control plane state establishment protocol, etc.


Wouldn't those issues be reasonably address if the mapping was
stable enough to be cached in stable storage?

Or if the mapping was stateless, i.e., 1-to-1?

Traceability, fault isolation, etc., would also be mitigated by
1-to-1 mapping.  Especially in IPv6, where the mapping could be as
simple as a prefix exchange.

- Christian



--
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