[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [RRG] Renumbering...
Hi Noel,
|Do remember that the _provision_ of the mapping is a different
|issue from the
|_delegation_ of the mapping - in DNS terms, the latter is
|having an entry in
|.COM which points to company X's nameserver, and the former is
|company X's
|nameserver providing A records (etc) for www.X_company.com.
Understood completely.
| > the new site can provide their own mapping service and
|not aggregate,
| > impacting the scalability of the mapping.
|
|I don't understand this point (perhaps because I'm assuming
|that the mappings
|will be provided by a hierarchical delegation system like CONS)?
Simply this: if an IPv4 site with a swamp prefix wants to participate in
ALT, what happens? If they choose not to renumber, what happens?
Please also consider the transition plan while you're at it.
| > The analogy of having a group of providers supporting
|.com is a good
| > one. If that could be worked out, that could conceivably
|create an open
| > market for mapping services. However, please note that
|such a market
| > would have to be created for each and every mapping
|aggregate. Unlike
| > TLDs, I suspect that we will need more top levels. How
|many aggregates
| > do we forsee? 1000? Frankly, I'm skeptical that we will
|be able to
| > create this market.
|
|Your concern at the end of that seems to be assuming that each
|provider will
|be servicing only one top-level aggregate. I don't see any reason the
|providers wouldn't serve many/most top-level aggregates - i.e.
|we might have
|3 providers, each of which can provide many (most?/all?) mappings.
Fair, you can trivially support more than one prefix. To continue the
analogy, this would seem to have many of the same properties as the root
nameservers in DNS.
|(The exact details here are left unstated, there's something
|of a design
|decision tree: a) if every provider does not have the entire
|set, then you
|have to either i) ask them all in parallel, or ii) accept
|delays on some
|lookups if you have to fail over to a secondary; or b) you
|mandate that all
|providers carry all mappings, although some providers could be
|'secondary';
|i.e. they don't get the mapping directly from the client, but
|from one of the
|other providers - i.e. they listen to each other and pick up
|mapping they
|don't have. I don't think there are any insoluble technical
|problems here,
|we just have to make sure we design a system which can support
|the business
|relationships we require as well as the usual well-understood technical
|ones such as security, robustness, etc.)
Again, I'm less concerned about the technical side of things than I am about
vendor lock vs. the cost of renumbering. It would seem that to prevent
vendor lock, there must be a broad market of mapping providers. And to
avoid renumbering the identifier prefix must be portable across those
mapping providers. In short, it seems like we have to have a situation
directly analogous to what we have today with the DFZ full of swamp
prefixes. We have a number of 'DFZ' mapping providers advertising mapping
for 0/0 and delegating the entire swamp. Again, this feels like we haven't
solved the problem, we've just pushed it up a layer.
Regards,
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