RE: [RRG] Renumbering...

["Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>]

Hi Noel,

|    > 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.


For DNS, we don't have a 'push' model that forces people to hold data that
they have no need for, and thus the need for aggregation is greatly reduced.



|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.


So then why are the ALT folks reusing distributed path-computation for
distributing a mapping?

Tony


--
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