RE: [RRG] Consensus check: renumbering

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

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

    >> Did you want to modify your question to be "what amount of renumbering
    >> _in the identification namespace_ can be required"?

    > I don't think that end users will care one whit about which namespace
    > they're renumbering. The work's the same. ;-)

Well, no it's not, actually - which is one of the chief points of having more
than one namespace.

(Since we all agree that a site which is only a small piece of the entire
connectivity graph needs to renumber its location-names when it switches to a
different ISP^H^H^H connectivity point to the graph, then if it were equally
easy to renumber location-names and identity-names, then one might as well
just go ahead and renumber the identity-names, right?)

The exact details of _how_ much easier/harder it will be depend on the exact
details of the scheme, of course.

E.g. as someone (Iljistch? - sorry in advance if my memory is failing me on
that) pointed out, NAT allows you to avoid renumbering _inside_ the site, but
still require renumbering everything _outside_ the site. With LISP and
similar schemes, you have to update the mapping table, but depending on what
external stuff is configured to use, you may be able to avoid any other
changes (e.g. if other sites filter on the EID and not the RLOC - I hope I
got that jargon right - you could avoid updating foreign filters). Etc, etc.

	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