ÔÚÄúµÄÀ´ÐÅÖÐÔø¾Ìáµ½: >From: "Jun Bi" <[email protected]> >Reply-To: >To: å¼ å½å¼?<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [rrg] question about the Identifier/Locator separation >Date:Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:28:48 -0700 > > > >> I'm a newcommer to this working group. >> To my understanding, the new architecture contains identifiers, >> locator/routing, >> mapping systems. So when a user moves, his identifier will not change, but >> he will >> get a new locator, and he has to publish the new locator in the mapping >> system, or >> there is some automotic mechanisms to do that. >> >> My problem is that in traditional routing systems, the IPv4 address serves >> both >> the identifier and locator, and the routing table growth and routing >> dynamics >> happens to the routing system. When identifier and locator separates, the >> routing >> system will have much less pressure, but what about the mapping system. It >> seems >> that the pressure has been transfered from the routing system to the >> mapping >> system. Can the mapping system handle the large number of mappings and >> dynamics? > >I think, the major benifits of ID/Location mapping are not only for routing >scaliablity. >Please see the slides in RRG meeting today. I don't doubt the benefits of ID/locator separation. My concern is what if the mapping system cannot accompolish the strong dynamics or other burdens that are shifted from the routing system? >thanks, >Jun Bi > > > > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rrg mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg >> >> > >
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
