> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> the current routing table is 8 x the number of ASes and BGP not only
> fails to contain updates to a limited part of the network, it actually
> amplifies them as they circle the globe. Those issues are separate from
> an id/loc overload.
I can't say for sure about the first, because I don't know the exact cause(s)
of that, but as to the second, I think your conclusion is entirely
unwarranted.
To fix the 'contain updates to a limited part of the network' issue, an
topologically organized allocation of 'routing-names' (either hierarchical, or
landmark routing, or _something_ like that, which allows limiting the scope of
information about a given destination). Yes, it's true that the routing system
_at the moment_ is incapable of using any such well-organized routing-names -
but that doesn't obviate the *requirement* for them, if one _does_ want to
limit the scope of updates.
And here we are precisely back to the need for routing-names which aren't
permanent, _uncorrelated to location_ - because it's evident that the users
*do* need permanent names for hosts, so there's a direct conflict between what
users want (permanent names) and what routing needs (names which change when
location changes), and there is no way to square that circle with a single
namespace.
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
