Re: [RRG] thoughts on the design space 4: encapsulate vs. translate

[Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>]

Jari,
> So for the moment this leaves me with the following "best" design:
>
> 1. Employ something like NERD for the mapping table, no caching

By doing this, you assume that the only benefits of a mapping system is 
to reduce the number of prefixes carried on core routers. In this case, 
a static mapping system could be acceptable, but a mapping system can 
offer many more benefits than simply improving the scalability of the 
core routers. A dynamic mapping systems can allow sites to do much more, 
see :

http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be/publications/evaluating-benefits-locatoridentifier

> 2. Identifier spaces are allocated per organization, PI style, 

I agree, this is key for the scalability of the mapping system. A single 
mapping reply should provide mapping information for a (preferably 
large) set of identifiers

> and we do 
> not attempt to solve the host identifier-locator split

I think that in some environments locators would be attached only to 
routers while in other environments locators would be attached to (at 
least some) hosts. The architecture should support this, at least in the 
long term.

Olivier
--
http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be , UCLouvain, Belgium

--
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