Re: [RRG] Long term clean-slate only for the RRG?

[Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>]

> > > I can't see anyway around the location-identity-separation +
> > > unmodified-hosts --> network-sized-mapping-database problem. Or  
> > > is ..
> > > there's some clever solution I have missed?
>
> > just want to make sure you are not implying some other subtle point.
>
> No, no, just what it says: if we want to have both i) separation of  
> location
> and identity, and ii) unmodified hosts, then we necessarily have to  
> have a
> network-sized mapping database.

Okay, thanks for clarification.

> My point was that, if my thinking is correct (and if it's not, can  
> someone
> please point out where I've gone wrong), it's not reasonable to
> simultaneously say 'I want location/identity separation' and also  
> say 'I
> don't want to change existing host software' and 'I think a big  
> mapping
> database is not feasible'. If you want the first, one of the next  
> two _has_
> to give; the only question is _which_.

Well, I think you are right. That is the way I see it.

> I phrase it in high-level terms, not in terms of any particular  
> proposal, to
> make clear that it seems to me to be a fundamental limitation. If I am
> confused, can someone please straighten me out!
>
> If not, then I think it would be interested to have people hum on i)  
> do we
> want location/identity separation, and, if 'yes', ii) do we a)  
> change hosts,
> or b) accept the need for a network-sized mapping database - making  
> clear, at
> the time we ask i), that it implies having to make a choice at ii).

Right.

> > I think the RRG has only focused on loc/id split and really hasn't  
> > gone
> > into greater depth with other routing architectures.
>
> Ah, I don't consider the location/identity split a 'routing  
> architecture'.
> It's an ancillary aspect of the overall system architecture, one  
> which has at
> best some influence on particular desired operational goals having  
> to do with
> routing (e.g. provider independence).

That is the reason I call a solution like LISP more shorter-term in  
the grand scheme of things.

Dino


--
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