RE: [RRG] Renumbering...

[jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)]

    > From: "Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>

    > Again, abstraction is a necessity for scalability, be it within routing
    > or within the mapping function. The only way to maintain that
    > abstraction within the ID space is by renumbering.
    > Map and encap does not 'solve' the problem, it only pushes it from BGP
    > into the mapping function.

I disagree with the second two of these three statements.

For the second, I see absolutely no need for renumbering within an identifier
space. About the only hazard of keeping forever an existing identifier string
is 'resolver lock in', but we have the exact same issues in DNS, and seem to
have found acceptable answers to these issues there.

As to the third, a distributed mapping functionality is fundamentally a whole
different - and easier - kettle of fish from a distributed path-selection
computation. The latter is (necessarily) a computation, and depending on how
it's split up for distribution, it can become quite painful. (The Destination
Vector approach, where the computations of the algorithm are themselves is
distributed, is the worst case.) Even the best cases are still far more
complex than the distribution of a mapping, though.

	Noel

--
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