|
In einer eMail vom 22.09.2008 15:41:56 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
heinerhummel@kabelmail.de:
Brian
wrote:
|I fully agree, and what I'm suggesting is that the (sad) history
of
|the initial success of CIDR followed by the recent backsliding
which
|I call "the PI heresy" shows us that economics will always
|tend
to create
|a swamp, so we'd better engineer the system for a swamp. And
|in a swamp,
|any benefit from aggregation is both limited and
unpredictable. (Would
|anybody like to predict the effect of the collapse
of the US financial
|system on BGP4 aggregation two years from
now?)
Do you really mean that? Are you really suggesting that we
engineer routing
for 2^48 prefixes?
|True. But that is, to use
the technical term, a crap-shoot, just as
|BGP aggregation of adjoining PI
prefixes is a crap-shoot. It will
|be the exception rather than the rule;
that's the nature of a swamp.
|There are no natural economic forces that
provide incentives for
|aggregation.
True. The alternative is
for us to remove the incentives to deaggregate (as
best we can) and then to
restrict things so that people can't hurt the
system.
And the right alternative is to do forwarding without any address prefix
dependency at all, see also my previous emails.
Heiner
|So I stick to my guns: we need to map the edge-swamp into a
|significantly
|smaller core-swamp, or nothing will change. Relying on
aggregation at
|the edge hasn't worked for BGP, so why should it work for
any form
|of EID/RLOC mapping (regardless of terminology)?
I'd
argue that if there's a core swamp, you've already failed to
scale.
Tony
|