I'm glad to see I can still raise up a controversy! Here's the problem I saw. Consider two network maps:
> MapA: A1 = 10.0.0.0/14 > A2 = 10.0.0.0/15 > > MapB: B1 = 10.0.0.0/16, 10.1.0.0/16, 10.2.0.0/16, 10.3.0.0/16 > B2 = 10.0.0.0/15 > PIDs A1 and B1 cover exactly the same set of endpoint addresses. So the naïve view is that those two network maps are dentical. But if we strictly apply the "longest prefix match" rule, they are NOT identical. In MapA, 10.0.0.0 is in A2, while in MapB, it's in B1. To me, that's counterintuitive. If y'all like that, fine. I can live with that! But it should be documented, because I think this has serious potential for misinterpretation. And the next bake-off should have a test case for this -- eg, the network map should define PIDs like B1 and B2, and there should be a test that 10.0.0.0 is in B1, not B2. - Wendy Roome From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email protected]> Date: Wed, October 23, 2013 18:47 To: Sebastian Kiesel <[email protected]> Cc: IETF ALTO <[email protected]>, Wendy Roome <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [alto] Problem with "longest prefix" rule for mapping endpoints to PIDs These are fast responses. It seems that the majority (3:1) is to keep the non-merging semantics. If we do not hear other objections, we will keep the current version, but do clarify using the good example from Wendy. Cheers, Richard
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
